The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Passions. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony (Passions)[edit]

Harmony (Passions) (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 WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Passions. There doesn't seem like there are any reliable sources that talk about the town in any way other than plot summaries. Looking for sources, I'm only finding things that just mention it as the setting of the show, with no in-depth discussion about the location. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Passions. Not independently notable. 1292simon (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Younesi[edit]

Michael Younesi (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)

Articles without updated references which are tenuous at best. Completed a single series. Can't see how he is notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Indeed he has served as Executive Producer/Director only on a single series, however that series has aired globally for Three Seasons [1], and has been highly recognized, including both an Emmy nomination and NAACP Image Award [2] [3]. He directed the majority of episodes, including the entire first season [4]. Appears this would satisfy WP:BIO "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60C5:9300:8017:584C:AB42:559C (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That was a SPA account with a single edit coming in to comment. scope_creep (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article creator is attempting to make good on new references. scope_creep (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Multiple additional, verifiable references added for good measure. MichaelCohenProjectMc2 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BARE and WP:CREATIVE. It now meet our bare-minimum standards. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 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. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Villalba (Entrepreneur)[edit]

Fran Villalba (Entrepreneur) (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 appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG - sources provided are brief mentions, press releases, affiliated organizations, or social media. My searches found little, if anything, to bolster notability. GAB^gab 23:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! We have dedicated a lot of time to get this article right. We have looked into reliable sources and we made sure it met the notability requirements, without being promotional. The subject described in the article manages a company with over 10 million customers and has his own successful company, being only 19 years old. He has appeared on several TV interviews (LevanteTV, 11tv) and articles about him have been published on significant newspapers (infoLibre or La Razon). Do please let us know how to improve this article (make it more objective, include more valid sources etc). Thank you! May the force be with you

• Comment: Draft previously declined twice: [5]. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a subject who is employed by one web hosting firm and has also started a company of his own, neither of which are notable in their own right. I agree with User:David.moreno72's assessments of the earlier drafts: for me, it describes a mundane early career lacking encyclopaedic notability. Wikipedia is not here to preen the aspiring; pre-existing notability is required. The given references for the subject's company are a newswire press release, a blog posting, a couple of social media pages by the subject, a promotional appearance on local TV and a listing in a start-up competition (in which it has gathered 27 votes): this is far from sufficient. AllyD (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete- cross wiki person promo with sockpuppets since 2014 - see file here. MoiraMoira (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough reliable sources (2-3) that do prove the content in this Wikipedia page. I do also feel that the person in the page is notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.136.166 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly sourced; there is one good source that lists him, from IEET, but that is a listing of one work by him, not about him.Bearian (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – run of the mill puff piece, by a WP:SPA, on an individual that doesn't meet our notability criteria. Citobun (talk)!
• Speedy delete. Not notable. Declined draft appears to have been written by Fran himself. Then content was re-posted by a SPA using a different title to circumvent the Draft process. Must be destroyed! 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Older (George Michael song). (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Older EP[edit]

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

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

There is no discussion of this EP in reliable sources. The EP is mentioned in the Older (George Michael song) article, so a merge/redirect to there may suffice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or at least just redirect. No need to delete an article about an EP that includes four notable songs, charted in at least four countries, and was certified silver in the UK. Let the article grow. If anything, the redirect should be kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources I find about charting relate to the song or single rather than the EP. I couldn't confirm at all the Dutch peak of 29 only the 46 for the single. The link to the BPI website are deadlinks and I couldn't confirm, although again it may refer to the single certification. The EP completely fails the most important aspect of WP:NALBUMS, which states that all albums must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll note the potential charting issue on the discography's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The article should be part of the single of the same name or, let's say, vice versa as the EP format was released earlier, while the later AA-single featuring also the track "I Can't Make You Love Me" in addition. But that depends also on which format of the work charted higher if both. Gustont (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The 1996 EP and the 1997 double-single (which just doesn't include the EP's other 2 B-side tracks) are not independently notable. Therefore one of them should be merged into the other. I think Gustont's suggestion of retaining the higher charting release is a good approach. 1292simon (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In Square Circle. (non-admin closure) Yash! 23:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger on The Shore of Love[edit]

Stranger on The Shore of Love (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 single, fails WP:NSONG ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, fails notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to In Square Circle. The song itself lacks any independent notability, but it should be redirected since it exists on a notable album. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Now I think this is an article a more experienced editor should fix it up a bit, describe it a little bit more and insert some reviews that the single received at the time and the positive effect the song could have had on his career.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrakd002.302 (talk • contribs)
• Redirect to In Square Circle. For reasons identified by Yoshiman6464. 1292simon (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Walker Studios[edit]

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

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

No evidence of passing WP:COMPANY, as there are lots of unreliable sources that do not establish notability, and no reliable sources can be found that could be added to the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Underneath the inflated claims and PR puffery, I'm not seeing any real sign of real-world notability. --Calton | Talk 23:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – a promotional article by a single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a means of self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosing as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana[edit]

Elisa Jordana (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 AFD in February began with a majority for delete, but was closed as redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. Since then, she's had a minor role in Sharknado: The 4th Awakens, and last month another editor re-created over the redirect. Now for my money, one Sharknado does not a summer make, and the newly-recreated article reads like a straight paste from a press release for her. Still, reverting to the redirect without a discussion doesn't quite seem to be in the spirit of the relevant policies, so I've taken it back to AFD. Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her association with one band; not notable per WP:NACTOR; has written some blogs, but the WaPo reference only mentions her in passing, so not notable per WP:AUTHOR. Her sole claim to fame seems to be her previous work on the Howard Stern show, for which she hasn't received much coverage in WP:RS outside of the shout-out on Jimmy Kimmel. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The movie role and the improved sourcing put this article over the edge of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect The sourcing is not very convincing, as many sources do not comply to WP:RS. The acting job is uncredited and only mentioned under "Rest of cast listed alphabetically". The Banner talk 18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I say delete for sure. Not only is the sourcing not convincing, but a lot of it isn't even sourced. The source for her attending the Connecticut School of Broadcasting doesn't even mention her.TBMNY (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has a lot of detractors who don't like her but she was apart of a very popular band, a regular guest and writer for the most famous Radio Show in history, had a movie role, written for many popular websites, and is verified on Twitter. More than enough to warrant a Wikipedia Page IMO. LeafK1 (talk) 1:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

LeafK1, judging by your edit history, your opinion is incredibly bias. It honestly seems like the people who are editing this page are either Elisa Jordana herself, or people who knows her. It all looks super suspect.TBMNY (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, without prejudice to relisting in the future if her career does not progress further. All of her achievements alone would not qualify her; Being a member of Cobra Starship doesn't qualify her for her own article (see Matty Healy from The 1975, for example, who was deleted despite being relatively high-profile), nor does the minor acting role or the radio appearances. When combined, though, I think she just sneaks in as an admittedly Z-list public figure, and as such we should have an article. KaisaL (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify and redirect to Whose Streets?. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaah Folayan[edit]

Sabaah Folayan (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)

Some notability exists, but with one film only not released, it looks like a case of WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate. I think that Arthistorian1997 is correct that Folayan is not yet notable enough for an article. However, I don't think a straight delete is the best option. I'm inclined to say to move the article to Draft:Sabaah Folayan so it can be worked on. I'd also say to replace the article with a redirect to Whose Streets? until Folayan is independently notable: I think one article is warranted between the filmmaker and the film, and I think the film is the more likely of the two to get substantial coverage in the run-up to and following Sundance. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate as per ArtHistorian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion.  Sandstein  15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mudgil[edit]

R. K. Mudgil (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)

Raised at WP:BLPN and also tagged with notability concerns, bringing here for further assessment. Sagecandor (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notability found. He is president of just an association engaged in physiotherapy related activity. Can be considered for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep. Presidents of national associations in major fields are normally considered notable. The article however needs considerable expansion and better sourcing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national physiotherapy association of India seems to be IAP and not this association. Haryana is a state of India. Input by any Indian physiotherapists may be required to crosscheck notability but it looks like self promotion. WP:SPEEDY ((Db-g11)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs)

• Keep this article is relating to a person who is notable because he is voice of thousands of Physiothearapists. He is striving for the Physiothearapist Council in haryana State. His contribution is noteworthy and notable in the History of Haryana in Physiothearapist History, He is the President of a Association of Physiothearapists in Haryana and torch bearer for new generation in Haryana State.117.252.4.106 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete hopeless promotional and being made worse with yet more unsourced promotional content even as this AfD proceeds diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep hopeless promotion has been made by a different user.2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) 2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Hopeless promotion is made by someone who doesn't have wiki account. The language shows that person might be he himself or any close relative/ friend. I dint find any notable information on Google news or Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person has treated thousands by himself and is a torchbearer for the rights of this industry, His article should be kept on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.90.107 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dr. Mudgil is an eminent person in India. The page may be kept, as he is a notable person.Yogitadagar (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Yogitadagar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – self promotion, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Keep votes come from single-purpose accounts intended to stack this discussion. Citobun (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedia value. Note to closing admin, please see that the keep votes have been made by new / un-registered users and user Drm310 has also pointed the same out. Possible COI in voting. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Guruji Maharshi[edit]

Sri Sri Guruji Maharshi (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 article lacks the importance to be encyclopedic. When I search google for the name I can only found the results for Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). JackTracker (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop Digital[edit]

Workshop Digital (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)

30-person marketing company with purely local or other trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promo piece on a run-of-the-mill digital marketing agency that is in no way unique, remarkable, interesting or noteworthy. Mduvekot (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Understand that this article may appear on the fringe of notability, but it's not a "promo piece." All cited references are legitimate, third-party sources, albeit primarily local and regional ones. OpenWork is the exception and intended to demonstrate wider appeal, as is the list of clientele to reinforce notability within the industry. From a local perspective, organization's relocation to Shockoe Slip reflects revitalization of the area that includes long-time tenants The Martin Agency and new offices for CarMax. Turnaphrase (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have seen an article defended as notable on the basis that two notable firms are in the same neighborhood. As fir the likely significance of even that, note the number of employees and the size of the charitable contributions. When it has not merely "intended to demonstrate wider appeal" , but has actually done so, will be time for an article.. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a misreading of the argument. The organization is not being defended on the "basis that two notable firms are in the same neighborhood"; the historic downtown area (Shockoe Slip) is notable and, therefore, organizations central to its revitalization are useful in the explanation of why the area has changed in recent years. Additionally, the OpenWork profile reflects coverage and notability beyond local relevance—"demonstrating wider appeal." It was the "intent" of the inclusion of that reference to achieve that goal. Turnaphrase ( talk ) 5:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is hardly any claim of significance here. A small 30 person company with very less coverage, (which is local). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is not inherited; this can be extended to "just because a company is in a notable location does not make the company notable." This company fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a WP:PROMO piece on an unremarkable company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Vardoulakis[edit]

Dimitris Vardoulakis (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 do not believe this academic meets any criterion for WP:PROF – he is simply a mid-level academic in Australia. I put up a proposed deletion before, but the creator of the article removed it with the summary note that Vardoulakis has had his work reviewed which means he meets criterion 1. However, almost all academic books receive some reviews in some academic journal – hence almost all humanities academics have reviews published of their work, certainly in Australia where it is standard for even a junior academic to have a published book. If this establishes notability, then almost all professional academics would be notable. Vardoulakis is not highly cited, which is the main thing discussed at criterion 1. esperant 22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. GS h-index of 6 not quite enough, even in this low-cited field. WP:Too soon. Nominator is advised to learn more about the academic citation system in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure how you derive this h-index from GS: there is a more prominent academic of the same name working in computing who has a GS proflie and an h-index of 5. By my rough calculation this subject of this deletion proposal has an h-index of 4. esperant 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web of Science gives him a h-index of 2. Either way I think we can agree it's not very high. Joe Roe (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I agree with an h-index of 2. And WP:GNG is not met either. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. I agree that simple having one's work reviewed doesn't meet WP:PROF#C1. As an associate professor with relatively low citations and apparently no other indicators of notability, the subject doesn't quite meet our standard of notability. Joe Roe (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm really surprised by the above comments, which seem to set a too-high notability bar for academics. Yes, lots of humanities academics publish books which get reviewed, and yes, that means lots of academics (lots more than we have articles about) are notable. Equally, lots of bishops, professional athletes and film actors are notable. The article now cites multiple reviews for both of his monographs. This means that each of them meets the general notability guideline on their own; if his books are notable, he certainly is. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern here is consistency, so if the conclusion is that the great majority of publishing academics should have Wikipedia articles for them, then I will be content with that result. I would also note however that the criterion for general notability is 'significant coverage', which is quite ambiguous: while one might think two reviews of an academic book in academic journals is 'significant' coverage, I don't think it is clearly the case that it should count as significant, and indeed I don't think it is 'significant' but rather simply what is expected of a new academic monograph. I would also note that WP:PROF notes that outlets which themselves review almost every book that comes out shouldn't be taken to contribute to notability, and that one of the cited reviews is in NDPR, which reviews almost every new philosophy monograph. esperant 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC
    • I find these claims bizarre. First, plenty of "publishing academics", even mid- or late-career academics, have not published books, or have not published books with major presses, and/or have not published books which have attracted any reviews. If you look through a faculty list at a research university, you might not get this impression, but being on the faculty at a research university already sets one apart from many other academics (or would-be academics). Second, of course a lengthy book review constitutes significant coverage. This discussion would not be arising if we were talking about film reviews, or novel reviews, or album reviews, or episode reviews appearing in newspapers. It's odd that reviews in academic journals are treated with such suspicion. Third, multiple reviews may (or may not) be "what is expected" for an academic text with a university press, that's not, in itself, an argument that it does not constitute "significant coverage" for notability purposes. Imagine how bizarre it would sound if you said "delete- this may have received a lot of reviews, but that's what is to be expected for a James Cameron film". Fourth, the NDPR publishes lengthy (I think even peer reviewed, but I'm not certain about that) reviews of new books (not "every" new book- not even close) from specially selected academics, and is well-respected and widely read in the philosophical community. Again, I don't see why it's being treated with such suspicion. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reviews would carry more weight if they were accompanied by higher citation rates overall, since WP:PROF guides us to consider these together in judging whether a work has made a "significant impact" in its field. Does 30 citations for a six year old book really constitute a "highly cited" work in philosophy? Joe Roe (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in my view, no, but citation rates are an imprecise science, both in terms of judging the significance of a work (within philosophy, some kinds of works and works on some particular topics are going to see higher citation rates) and because the automatically generated citation numbers are unreliable. That said, this discussion is academic. My claim does not rest on citation rates; it rests on the general notability guideline. As both WP:GNG and WP:PROF explain, a failure to meet the academic-specific guidelines does not preclude an individual's being notable if (s)he meets some other notability guideline. I ask you what I asked esperant: why are you setting such a high bar for academics? This kind of coverage would unquestionably ground notability in the case of a musician or novelist. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not my intention to set a high bar, just to consistently apply the criteria we usually apply to academic biographies in AfDs. I agree there are big discrepancies between the various SNGs (WP:PORNSTAR being the paradigmatic example), and would definitely support a proposal to loosen the criteria for academics, but that's a wider discussion.

I didn't realise you were basing your argument on the GNG. Of course if Vardoulakis meets that then WP:PROF is irrelevant. At this point I can't say I agree that the reviews of his books constitute significant coverage of Vardoulakis himself, but I'd happily change my !vote if shown otherwise. Joe Roe (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, I don't think we disagree as much as I thought. Two thoughts on "reviews of his work" versus "articles about him". First, these reviews at least amount of significant coverage of his work. But few academics are going to have (say) newspaper articles written about their personal lives or biopics produced about their childhood. Surely, though, that's not that which we want; it's (generally) their work that makes notable academics notable, so discussion of their work is surely enough to ground notability (just as articles discussing a musician's music or a painter's exhibitions would surely be enough to ground their notability). Second, both of Vardoulakis's monographs (and both of his collections, but it's the monographs I'm more concerned with here) literally meet the GNG in their own right; it would surely be odd to say that his two monographs are notable but that he is not. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost all academics in this field will publish books. Vardoulakis does not yet have the level of citations to make him highly cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • John: Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I'm not convinced anyone has answered yet: Why do you have such a high bar for academics? Multiple works reviewed in highly reliable sources would be enough to ground notability of any musician, novelist, filmmaker, etc. Do you believe that the GNG does not apply to philosophers? If so, on what basis? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, to be blunter: "Delete. Almost all musicians produce albums. Doesn't matter if these albums have been reviewed in multiple magazines, this musician has not yet charted at a level required by WP:OBSCUREGUIDELINE#C1." Josh Milburn (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Josh, I don't think this is comparing like with like. Being an academic is a profession. Academics produces works that are read, in the standard course of their work, by other academics. This activity does not in itself make them notable. Reviews in academic journals is a communication within a small professional community. Very few people buy and read academic journals any more. Academic journals are not magazines. If you want to compare like with like, imagine a musician who cut an album which has sales of approximately 100 copies and was reviewed in a publication with a total circulation of a few hundred. Such a musician would not be notable. esperant 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't find that argument at all convincing, for reasons I'd be happy to explain, but I'll just cut to the point: What I'm hearing here is twofold. First, you're claiming that academic journals are literally worse sources for establishing notability than popular magazines. Second, you're claiming that the GNG does not apply to academics. Neither of these claims have any basis in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines (or, if I'm wrong here, please point to the guidelines I am not aware of), and they result in the kind of anti-intellectualism for which Wikipedia is frequently criticised. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not claiming that WP:GNG doesn't apply to academics. I am applying it. Clearly we have different ideas about how it applies here. I do claim that academic journals are lesser sources of notability than popular magazines, since I believe notability is established by significant coverage per GNG and I believe this coverage is more significant. I do not believe this is anti-intellectualism. Rather, I believe the opposite opinion is special pleading that takes intellectuals as having eo ipso higher notability than any other class of individual whose ideas are heard by a very small audience. esperant 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand your special pleading case in the slightest. Show me the sources, and I'll support keeping an article on anyone, academic or not, no matter how few people hear their views. I don't really understand what that's meant to prove. As for us having "different" views about what the GNG entails; I'm just going off what is written. Are the sources reliable? Yes, they're in peer reviewed journals. Is the coverage significant? Yeah, it's a whole article, not a passing mention. (And yes, that's what "significant" means; ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.") Are the articles independent of the subject? Clearly. Where's the room for a difference of interpretation? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have to admit after reading it again in light of your comment that you are right and I was wrong above about the meaning of 'significant coverage', hence you are right that on this specific point it's not a matter of interpretation. I nonetheless continue to read GNG as not applying here. Firstly, reviews of book constitute significant coverage per GNG of the books, not the author of the book. You above suggest it would be paradoxical for the books to be notable and not the author, but this I would suggest would be the case here if 'significant coverage' were sufficient to establish notability: we do not have sufficient information published in reputable secondary sources to have an overview article on this person, since we only have accounts of the content of a couple of their books, without linking information. In any case, however, I believe that you are reading GNG as a list of sufficient rather than necessary conditions. That is, it is a necessary condition for producing an article that the topic have significant coverage, whereas the last point of GNG makes clear that while significant coverage creates a presumption of notability it does not in itself 'guarantee' inclusion, because there may be other considerations. In this case I think both WP:PROF and WP:NOT constitute established conventions by which Wikipedia does not give articles to any academic with a reviewed book. esperant 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • The GNG is explicitly not a set of necessary conditions, which is why we have WP:PROF and the like. These guidelines are in place to identify notable people who do not meet the GNG. That's not how they're being used here, however; you're explicitly trying to use them to exclude people who do meet the GNG. And that's sad. (I've no idea what part of WP:NOT would justify not having an article about an established academic; the appeal sounds suspiciously ad hoc.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject neither meets the GNG nor PROF; that's the bottom line. I am thoroughly unimpressed by arguments that failure to set the bar for academics as low as some might like, or that the longstanding principle about notability not being inherited shouldn't be suspended in their favor, implies that Wikipedia is "anti-intellectual." If people are unhappy with one or another SNG, the argument should be made at the appropriate talk page, not here. Ravenswing 18:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous articles about Vardoulakis's work are cited in the article. It is not clear to me at this stage what everyone is actually looking for, here. Tabloid stories about his personal life? What establishes an academic's notability if not articles about his work? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If someone like Vardoulakis is not a notable academic, then who is? According to pro-deletes, I think we have to delete more than 80 percent of academics'pages in Wikipedia. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then who is? What a bizarre question! One answer is philosopher Ernest Gellner with over more than 25,000 citations in GS (I lost count after that) and an h-index of 50. The early-career subject of the BLP does does not come within visual sighting of that. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That's a hyperbole. Please read my second sentence! --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this article meets the notability requirements for inclusion. As I've argued, it doesn't seem to me that it does. I am quite willing to accept that this means that 80% of the articles on academics on Wikipedia should be deleted. Indeed, I think that WP:NOT implies that we shouldn't have pages on so many minor scholars. The thrust of WP:GNG here is that we should have articles only on subjects where there is a sufficient secondary literature to actually lean on to compose a tertiary encyclopedia article about that thing. Naturally, only a small percentage of the most prominent scholars could ever have properly referenced articles written about them. esperant 13:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am no longer watching this page. If you wish to talk to me in particular, please comment on my talk page. This has been an eye-opening discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it appears that he just received tenure from a lesser-known university. We have sometimes kept articles about associate professors, but those have been at the most prestigious universities, such as Ivy league or Oxbridge universities. Having taught for almost two decades at a lesser college, and failed to get tenure, I am well aware how difficult this must be. I was managing editor of a law journal and edited two editions of a popular Business law textbook -- and got nothing for my efforts. I'm now starting all over again, applying for a fellowship at the age of 52. Wish me luck at the January 16th interview! My triplet sister, a scholar at a "Carnegie tier-I university", has lots of entries at Google Scholar and has written too books, but does not have a Wikipedia article either, nor tenure for that matter. Usually we only keep full or named professors. Too soon is right. By the way, there are several scholars whose articles I think we need to delete, but that is not on the table for discussion right now. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with what you say, in line with my comments above, I do want to note in fairness that you perhaps slightly underestimate the seniority of Associate Professors in the Australian system: while in North America Associate Professor is the lowest tenured rank, in Australia rank and tenure are separate questions, but tenure is typically achieved at a lower rank, Senior Lecturer – and it may take decades for a tenured academic to reach Associate Professor. Associate Professor in Australia is more closely equivalent to full Professor in North America than to Associate Professor there. But I would suggest that academic rank cannot establish notability in and of itself in any case. esperant 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons described by Joe Roe. 1292simon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After being relisted 3 times, participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhar[edit]

Sandhar (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'r meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – In case the Sandhar clan fails notability, Sandhar should be kept as a disambiguation page because it clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision of Sandhar. If the clan fails notability, there won't be any primary topic left here. So, there won't be any need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. In short, the revision cited by me will be a valid page in itself.

PS: WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation as per comments from Nitin above Spiderone 18:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can restore if anyone is interested in merging, but keep in mind that this topic may present WP:UNDUE emphasis that doesn't belong in the target article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic cake[edit]

Erotic cake (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 whose subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. - DZ - 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I were able to find some usage: [6][7][8][9][10][11] but it might be better suited to simply being at List of cakes. There was also some usage of the term "naughty cake". Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's a thing, for sure, but is it notable? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no need for a separate article about every shape of cake (e.g., tower cake, sex doll cake). A ton of similar stubs is just mindless clutter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't demonstrate notability. Possibly transwiki to someplace like wictionary. Anyway, the caption is wrong. It doesn't count as nude if you're wearing a leaf. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge per User:AKS.9955 is not a bad idea, but Cake decorating would be a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cake. Article is not notable standalone and best merged into the main article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cake. Google shows plenty of potential for the topic, but I think it is best covered in the Cake article. 1292simon (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Evidence has been provided that this village meets WP:GEOLAND. Perhaps users here may be interested in improving the article with references provided herein; it is presently rather poorly sourced. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoana[edit]

Mangoana (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 sources, nothing indicating it is notable. The content isn't really worth merging. Yellow Diamond (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the NGA GEOnet Names Server brings up nothing by this name in Pakistan (there is a village in Madagascar, apparently) which isn't a good sign. A small village or compound does appear to exist at the given coordinates, but Google Maps declines to name it. The article was created by a three-edit account, so its possible we are looking at a hoax or a gross misspelling here. FWIW, WP:GEOLAND is the relevant notability guideline; I can find no evidence that the location is legally recognized (no postal code, not mentioned in the Pakistani census that I can see), so deletion seems appropriate. Happy to change my vote if someone more knowledgeable about Pakistani sources finds other information. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to keep, The census ref below is enough for me, appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In Census table (1998 is the most recent published Census: 1998 District Census report of Jhang. Census publication. Vol. 114. Islamabad: Population Census Organization, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. 2000. p. 246.) as "Mangoana QH", with a population of 74,753, so a significant population unit. Also on Google Maps [12] and here and it seems they have frequent power cuts [13] (as "Manguana"): Noyster (talk), 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Noyster, I've changed my vote based on the census ref you located. However something isn't adding up, the population figure doesn't jive with the satellite view offered by Google, which shows a rather small cluster of buildings - I just can't believe 74,753 people live (or ever lived) within the boundaries provided by Google. At a generous estimate of 250 buildings, that's nearly 300 people per building. Perhaps this has something to do with the "QH" designation, which I can't seem to find a meaning for - I wouldn't want to add it to the article until it's clear what was measured there. NGA GEOnet does have two entries for Manguana in Pakistan, the one with coords that best match Google's is an alternate name for what they've officially deemed "Chak Two Hundred Forty-One" (no deeplink possible, alas). Antepenultimate (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are: QH, Qanungo Halqa (an administrative subdistrict) [14]. The diagram on p. 38 here shows the QH as a tier intermediate between the District and the individual settlement. I also see Wikipedia has Mangoana is listed as a "locality" in ((Neighbourhoods of Chiniot)) and as a village in the list in Bhawana Tehsil. The likelihood is that the name Mangoana is used for an individual village and also, for administrative purposes, a group of villages. The situation is less than crystal clear but I think there's enough to call it a "recognised populated place": Noyster (talk), 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As per above this is a real population center which are notable regardless of size or obscurity. --Oakshade (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Bettencourt[edit]

Emanuel Bettencourt (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 (minor roles only) or martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete would need major roles to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, and next, same is said as a martial artist, therefore no applicable notability has been established. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He isn't an actor at all, he's a stunt coordinator and a fight choreographer. Google turns up a fair amount on him in Turkish, which I can't read, but seems to relate to his work on Secret of the Sultan – apparently a notable film in Turkey. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is very close. But, found what appears to be ok coverage in Turkish (don't read it), he is in a martial arts Hall of Fame, found a 1984 reference in Black Belt magazine where he was included in a list of elite black belts, and he has appeared or done fight coordination in several notable German/Turkish films or TV shows. While I'm skeptical about whether the appearances or coordination work qualifies under WP:ENT, the whole package seems close enough to error on the side of keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martial art hall of fames have never been considered indication of notability and neither is a passing mention in a list defined by an adjective. They attended something and were called elite. Does not come close to meeting WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I said above, I'm not sure any one feature qualifies under any individual criteria of notability, but in my opinion the whole package (including martial arts, with RS mentions, and profile in notable TV and movies) seems likely notable. I stand by that assessment. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:47, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dinerman[edit]

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

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

I still confirm my PROD and, curiously, there was apparently a back and forth removal and adding of the PROD, but there's regardless still nothing here for actual notability and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. JeremyL. (talk) 1:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — racingfan78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Article creator. Mkdw^talk 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is notable in the field of work presented. Keep Passes WP:GNG. Javier. (talk) 1:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mkdw^talk 17:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He's a very young racetrack announcer. And that's pretty much it. If that's what it takes to pass WP:GNG, then GNG needs a massive overhaul. --Calton | Talk 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bordering on WP:TOOSOON, but I think notability is established by current sources. 1292simon (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Egbring-Kahn[edit]

Doris Egbring-Kahn (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: as non-notable ACTOR Quis separabit? 18:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Berliner Morgenpost had a 7-paragraph story about her in 2011. [15] Perhaps more can be turned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actress recently died, which explains the article creation now, but WP:BEFORE points to quite some material which needs to be evaluated. one example a key-role participation in de:Gregors größte Erfindung Agathoclea (talk) 13:34, 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 no consensus. No consensus has arisen within this discussion. Some users state that the company has received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines, while others question the depth of coverage provided by the sources and the validity of the sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Element Electronics[edit]

Element Electronics (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 sure what the motives are behing this article, about a TV import/assembly company. It currently hangs on only 3 lines in a Bloomberg article. The remainder seems to be about a controversy about the products, which was evidently uncovered in the Wall Street Journal in 2014. Someone is now posting original documents in the Wikipedia article to counter the allegations. If this article is becoming a battleground to debate legal outcomes then maybe the article is here for the wrong reasons. It's a newish company that seems to fall short of WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Google news search brings lots of independent news articles about this company. - Mar11 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After examining those, all I saw was in fact published and republished PR, so how are we to maintain such republishing is suitable despite said PR? Our policies themselves explicitly state against using such republishing triviality, and hence regardless of supposed significance, are still unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can find at least one source in each year since 2012. CBC Detroit, Tribune Chronicle, The State, Twice, Herald Independent, MediaPost Hang googles (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Note Hang goggles is a CU-banned user[reply]
• Keep while the article itself isn't incredibly good, it definitely meets notability in terms of third party coverage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please state which policy allows "articles [which aren't] incredibly good but has sourcing"? Because WP:NOT is our highest and important policy and it states against such company listings. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and here's why (from the sources above stated as "apparent news")
• 1 is a republished local news story PR
• 2 is the same, simply a different republishing host
• 3 is the same, simply a different republishing host
• 4 is the same, simply a different republishing host
• 5 is the same, simply a different republishing host

As it is, simply take this as an example of the sheer bareness of actual quality news, let the alone the obvious fact anything existing is simply their own republished words, hence not independent or convincing; what's else is the fact these Keep votes are simply saying "Hey, as long as these sources exist, that's enough" without actually caring to specify and examine them, and if they had, they would've seen the sheer consistency of the company's republished PR words in each of them. Regardless of numbers, that means absolutely nothing and it wouldn't matter because accepting them would damn us as a PR webhost, simply by the equally damning explanation of "Hey, they're at least sources". WP:NOT policy explicitly states this and it's stated because it's the first policy we used for articles and we still use now, mirrored in this case (policy states as it is, that GNG can be damned if policy is otherwise important, and it is in this case like any other AfD). If we want further amusement of advertising, take the history for example where it explicitly shows, not only an imaginably company account started this, but the sheer fact it was maintained exactly that, that's an all too well-known sign the company knew and maintained this article, given they would never in a snowball's chance in hell, learn how our encyclopedia works, especially given they're only advertising themselves! As it is, at least one of the IPs noticeably geolocate to the company's area, worse considering the fact the article always maintained an "About"-esque format. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article's references seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. IMO, the company's sole notability is on the issue of American manufacturing jobs. The elimination of US television manufacturing was big news 20 years ago. These guys are performing only final assembly in the US, but that is not insignificant... 108.127.196.48 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP number aside, how is the fact of "big news of manufacturing" subject to satisfying our policies or the fact WP:CORP in fact states "trivial listings are not allowed" which in this case, is exactly it? Simply because it exists or is a significant local economy-business is not significant to us. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per SwisterTwister's evidence. Not seeing in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After being relisted 3 times, participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Kingdom Parade[edit]

Magic Kingdom Parade (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)

plain advertising The Banner talk 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes the article is advertising, but the topic is notable.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Major Rewrite: As a big Disney fan and a member of WikiProject Disney and Disney task force on WikiProject Amusement Parks, it is hard for me to suggest the deletion of a Disney-related article. However, an article of this size should have more than 5 sources that have words ("Magic Kingdom Attractions" is just images), and should definitely have more than half of those that are not from a primary source (Disney Parks Blog). Don Dorsey's website is not a great source, except for small details, because it is basically just him bragging about his achievements. Also, the majority of the article (especially the listing the parades) is unsourced. As much as I hate to say it, I have to remove my Disney bias and go with the rational opinion that, unless this article undergoes a major rewrite with the addition of lots of reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Agree with Elisfkc that it needs a rewrite...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AS FC Urziceni[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football club that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability - has not played at a high enough level and has not received significant coverage. GiantSnowman 17:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails club level requirements of WP:FOOTYN and I can't find any other evidence of notability. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Don't Liga V teams play in the Preliminary Rounds of the Cupa României? Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but this club didn't exist yet when the last round of preliminaries were played. Not that playing in them would have confer notability since they're not part of the competition proper. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON; currently, I agree with the users that have stated a GNG and FOOTYN failure Spiderone 10:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There appears to be no agreement on whether her awards can be considered "well-known and significant." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue[edit]

Alektra Blue (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 BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; awards are fan-based or scene/group-related. Sources include online profiles, interviews and trivial mentions in tabloid-like publications -- these are insufficient to establish notability via GNG. Appearance in the mainstream outlets are trivial.

AfD in 2007 closed as "keep" based on the awards but the consensus around adult biographies has evolved significantly since then, along with PORNBIO, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against "fan-based" awards under our inclusions guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. WP:PORNBIO, especially term of "a well-known and significant industry award" are debatable, nominator - K.e.coffman and his "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! No, this is not a joke. Very destructive and controversial behavior. As for the second case: it does not matter whether a chosen people or "professors" (jury), there are many world-class awards in many industries where the winner chosen people. This is another attempt overstatement requirements by "deletionism pornography gang" with K.e.coffman and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The supposed "significance" of these short-lived awards is based only on an unatrributed quote sourced to the award's own promotional website, which should be given absolutely no weight. It certainly comes nowhere near outweighing the absence of substantial reliable secondary source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Guy1890 has done a satisfactory job and the article now conforms to Wiki standards. Holanthony (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The F.A.M.E. Award may provide a narrow technical pass of WP:PORNBIO, but the sources in the article come nowhere near WP:GNG's requirements. Only one citation (a fairly routine XBIZ article) remotely qualifies as reliable, independent and non-trivial. The rest are republished press releases or unreliable sites like XRentDVD. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG is not a content guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets of PORNBIO + some other smaller achievements + fame (well known, 34 interwiki speaks for itself). Generally, 101% notable. For me, this AfD is trolling by user:K.e.coffman, he inserts to AFD more and more notable pornstars. I suggest a little break in the topic of pornography for K.e.coffman because he lacks neutrality. WP:PORNBIO is not the only argument that you need to consider, also in this case, status of F.A.M.E. Award – Favorite Female (in WP:PORNBIO) is still disputed, where is neutrality? Voices to removed continuously from the same users, i.e. user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz or user:Johnpacklambert (with still the same silly-empty text of "non-notable pornographic performer") are boring and destructive. I understand, to do the cleanup in pornography category (delete pornstars without any achievements), but this is an exaggeration. Compact group which constantly vote for removed, still the same users responsible for the mass removed pornography articles (blindly based on WP:PORNBIO like robot), often they are trying to misuse the official consensus of WP:PORNBIO (for example: AVN Award is the most exclusive award in the industry but for these few users, not all awards of AVN Award are important). More and more we are approaching the final: topic ban for these few users, who massively intercede pornography articles for AFD and massively voting for delete. This "gang" of these few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, what see on each votes (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). I and few other (inclusionist) users like @Rebecca1990: or @Erpert:, we gave up - a constant battle with the same gang. Time to end it. PS. I apologize for my voice during the Christmas season - then again, I forgot... Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One more time: Interwiki links have no bearing on notability. Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines and some include articles because they exist in en.Wikipedia. AfD is not a battleground and this is not about winning or losing. I've kept away from voting in these borderline PORNBIOs with low-quality sourcing debates, but your call for a topic ban is ridiculous. Editors like HW take a hard line about reliable sources. The best response is to provide quality sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner, not to call the editors deletionists. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that the amount of interwiki is not a sufficient argument to keep and I know that "Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines" but if article existed on 35 Wikis, and gang of (still the same) few users on English Wikipedia want to remove article based on disputed interpretation of WP:PORNBIO, something is wrong. Alektra Blue is well known pornstar and have 406 films, 11 years in industry, she was the Penthouse Pet of the Month, she has also been featured in several men's magazines, including world-known Hustler (I know, none of them individually are not arguments for keep, but to analyze a person can be taken into account). She won several awards including (individual as requires WP:PORNBIO) notable F.A.M.E. Award and the so-called pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards, the most renowned prize in the pornographic industry. Otherwise, Blue appeared in the music video for the 2010 single "Telephone" by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé (+ independent - non pornagraphic sources, meets of WP:GNG). Alektra Blue meets the basic guidelines of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG and has additional achievements, even Wikipedia:Common sense speaks for leave. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no legitimate "dispute" over the application or interpretation of PORNBIO, at least in the direction Subtropical-man claims. The most recent RFC on PORNBIO "demonstrated overwhelming consensus" for making the guideline more restrictive. If there was any substantial dispute, it was over whether the guideline was not restrictive enough. Repeated deletion discussions and DRVs have also demonstrated strong consensus for the point that, as with every other SNG, failure to satisfy GNG/BLP sourcing requirements generally outweighs a technical SNG pass. Subtropical-man's argument that editors who consistently make policy/guideline-based arguments and achieve consensus for their positions are illegitimate demonstrates, at best, a mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE and, giben the level of repeated, groundless personal attacks ought to justify a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you talking about? There is no official consensus (on page reserved for this purpose, for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)) about awards: XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award (that these not meet of WP:PORNBIO) and also there is not official consensus for AVN Awards (that most of its prizes does not meet of WP:PORNBIO).
• WP:PORNBIO say: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award", for some users (including you and your gang), XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award not meet of PORNBIO, for some users these awards meets of PORNBIO. WP:PORNBIO does not specify exactly what prizes accepted, whether something meets the requirements or not, it is debatable case and based on subjective interpretation and own opinion. Until an official discussion and consensus on page reserved for this purpose, to new version of WP: PORNBIO who precisely show accepted awards, there will always be conflicts. PS. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you think that you create quiet consensus concerning WP:PORNBIO between users of your gang on AfD pages (or other pages this type), you're wrong and you show "mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE". Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Subtropical-man, you make perfect sense and your argument bears much merit, make no mistake. Wolfowitz's opinions lack substance as well as credibility as he makes it a constant point to eagerly resort to personal attacks and then whine about how everyone and their grandmother is conspiring against him (just read his signature, that should give you a flavor of what he's about). He is a BLP zealot who even goes as far as trying to invoke it on people who are long dead ("WP:BLP does not authorize scandalmongering about the dead"). [16] I am confident however, that the majority of users see through this charade of his and see this issue for what it i really worth and vote for "keep". @Gene93k, I disagree, I don't think Subtropical-man's call for a topic ban for HW is "ridiculous". As a matter of fact, I think it is highly warranted in his case as he only engages in disruptive, nonconstructive edits aimed at removing content rather than making it better or more constructive, often on completely erroneous grounds.Holanthony (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Holanthony, you and Subtropical-man conspicuously avoid arguments that are actually grounded in policy and guideline, preferring abusive comments about other users. You don't participate much in AFD discussions, and your !vote has never yet matched consensus. Subtropical-man's rate is as bad as I;ve ever seen for an experienced user, 16.6%.[17] In contrast, my "accuracy rate" is over 80& [18], while Gene93k, whose arguments you also decry, has an even higher consensus-match over 87%. Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive. Attacking editors for making consensus-based arguments is grounds for a topic ban; establishing or supporting consensus is not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), your percentages are nonsense and manipulation. Most of my votes in the AfD over the few years are in the field of pornography and... you with your "gang" with still the same few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, this gang vote in each AfD about pornography (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). If there would be this "gang", my "percent" is about 90. These numbers do not show anything. You wrote also: "Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive" - there is no official consensus about AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other, there are no official guidelines for AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other in WP:PORNBIO. Official text from WP:PORNBIO: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". For part of users, these awards are not meet PORNBIO, for part of users are meet of PORNBIO. For last months, I act according to the WP:PORNBIO (official consensus) but you not. You are constantly trying to increase the requirements, you falsify consensus telling other users that AVN Award (not all prizes) and F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award and each other awards are not meet of PORNBIO, based on its opinion. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're spouting ridiculous stuff again. The "nonsense and manipulation" you claim exists (without evidence) are actually generated by the standard tool used for RFA evaluation. Yes, your percentage would go up if only people who disagree with you didn't vote. Big deal. Making arguments that you disagree with and getting consensus support for them is hardly improper. It is exactly what's called for by WP:CONSENSUS. Your failure to accept this shows a failure to understand basic Wikipedia principles and reflects poorly on your WP:COMPETENCE. Now stop attacking other editors and ranting tendentiously. If not, it's likely to lead to a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above improvements and sourcing, BLP meets PORNBIO as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the recent set of edits have not substantially improved the article: diff. In fact, it added more trivia cited to the XRent web site & interviews:

• She credits fellow actress Taryn Thomas with her introduction to the adult industry, as they used to work at a call center when they both lived in Arizona.^[1]

Sources are still very unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination, the objection was, "lacks coverage...that discuss the subject directly and in detail."  Now the complaint is "added...trivia".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The extra trivia was added after the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we got that.  Other people would identify that as "detail", or responding to the problem identified in the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a royal "we"? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep  Pornbio topics are typically massively notable directly, by the understanding of notability provided by the WP:N nutshell.  This one seems to go well above any sense of "typically".

  At the last AfD, closed as Keep, the actress only had 97 movies listed, now the number is 406.  Nominator omitted WP:BEFORE B6, which reveals 24 interlanguage links, "which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles".  The next year after the last AfD closed as keep, the model received recognition as Penthouse Pet of the Month, a recognition I consider just by itself to be sufficient for at least a mini-bio on a page of related bios on Wikipedia. 

  Pornbio topics needs to satisfy WP:V, and there are 17 inline citations, with 5 "dead links", which are acceptable as verifiable sources, and one citation needed tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:PORNBIO guideline has been tightened substantially since the article was kept in 2007. Being a Penthouse Pet or Playboy Playmate is no longer an automatic pass. Prolificness and number of films was removed from PORNBIO later in 2007. Nominations no longer count and neither do scene-related awards. As for citations, quality (reliability) counts more than quantity. The sources that aren't junk are trivial mentions. The dead links at sites like AVN can be found by searching the site. They turn out to be republished press releases. As for inter-language links, Wikipedia in any language is not an acceptable source for supporting Wikipedia content, and many are just translations of the article in English Wikipedia (circular sources). As for giving the article more time, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice that the above post has mentioned more than one "that used to be an automatic pass" criteria that are applicable for this topic.  Just because they are no longer an "automatic pass" doesn't mean that they don't still carry weight.  And when the benchmark used to be 100 films, and this topic has 400, the weight is considerable.

  Republished press releases are secondary sources that carry the reliability of the publisher, and reliability also depends on context. 

  An issue remains that WP:BEFORE B6 was ignored in the nomination, and at this point, we don't know how much the discussion has been confounded by opinions developed before knowing the basic facts. 

  If there is a problem in the sourcing of the article, this would be important and independent of notability, but based on the sources and tags in the article, in fact there appears to be consensus that the article satisfies WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding WP:BEFORE, have you actually looked at the interwiki links? They use the same English-language citations that the en.Wikipedia article does. Some are even less well cited. Citing a failure to cross this T regarding an American porn star is legalism that defies common sense. Wikipedia is not a court of law. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the feedback loop here?  From engineering theory, the concept of a "system" requires feedback.  Are you a supporter of quality AfD nominations?  Wikipedia may not be a court of law, but it is also not a back street alley.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Re notability criteria: Before my time here, porn stars were kept for having an IMDb profile. As several Wikipedia guidelines and policies state, "Consensus may change." In the the case of PORNBIO, it has changed substantially over the past 10 years. There was a long drawn-out debate about what criteria about a porn performer predict likely notability, and that is the current WP:PORNBIO guideline. Nominations no longer count. Scene-related awards no longer count. X number of films was expressly removed in 2007, since film counts are easily inflated. We use the notability metrics agreed by consensus to determine whether or not an article is kept. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Press releases: Per WP:V, press releases are self-published material. (See note #9 referenced by WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources.) They are not intellectually independent of the agency promoting the good or service being reported. WikiProject Pornography notes that Adult Video News does not indicated whether an article is original reporting or a press release, but a common indicator is contact information. (To book this performer contact.../For more information visit...). WP:V says to treat such sources with caution and not to use them to support claims about living people. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as (happening to look in) I'll state the applicable porn actors notability says "Scene nominations aren't notable" and that's what we have here, so citing WP:PORNSTAR is not the same thing if it's not actually stating what's otherwise suggested, hence there's no other significant awards and no actual notability, as the nomination states. GNG is especially not applicable since it's a gamble given how thin and unconvincing it can be used for nearly anything, so WP:PORNSTAR is what applies here alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Unscintillating regarding WP:GNG not being a content guideline. Content is not the main issue we are discussing. Notability is the normal standard we use to determine whether to keep or toss an article. The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In contrast with this assertion, the relevant notability guideline is WP:Notability.  The following quotes are from the top of the guideline. 

  WP:Notability "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 

  The nutshell states, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As I replied to you in another AfD debate, GNG is the main body of WP:N. The section you quoted stresses WP:RS which is the main problem with this article. Ignore all rules rules requires compelling evidence. As I stated above, I am not !voting in this AfD, but the recent trend is to IAR/use common sense and delete these won-an-award-but-is-crappily-sourced PORNBIOs despite looser interpretations of WP:PORNBIO that used to prevail. Then again, PORNBIO is the most permissive standard in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG is one of our ways we reach understanding of WP:N.  WP:N can be determined without WP:GNG or any of the SNGs.  [redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You are pointing to a talk space essay/guideline fork that you wrote to expand on an assertion you made in an AfD discussion. Your complaint was that notability assessments are too GNG-centric. That AfD discussion closed as no consensus. A more productive path would be to bring the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Notability or the village pump. In this case, you propose satisfying it by ignoring all its related parts, another way of expressing "ignore all rules." Following WP:N without WP:GNG, we go to the relevant specialized guideline to the right, Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:BIO. The primary criteria (WP:BASIC) restate GNG in summary. Failing that without in-depth coverage by reliable sources, we go to secondary inclusion criteria, WP:PORNBIO in this case. Here lies our dispute: Are the awards won "well-known" enough to satisfy the PORNBIO guideline and do they overcome the lack of reliable source coverage? Again, IAR needs a compelling reason. What do you have? • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that you don't seem to like my link.  I've redacted the link because you don't show that you've understood it, so it is not helpful.  The other two sentences of the post remain. 

  Other text above that stands is the statement that reads, "WP:Notability is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow...".  WP:N is where notability is defined on Wikipedia; not at WP:GNG, not at WP:BIO, not at WP:BASIC, not at WP:PORNBIO, and not at WP:IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Gene93k, you wrote: "The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met" - yes, but in Alektra Blue case, PORNBIO are official met: two non-scene awards. The problem is only "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability not found , they so called nomination awards,,, is sources from a proomotional website , i cant find enough independent Reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course... but very interesting that - from the beginning - your account is only for AfD (except for a few editions): [19]... and also you were blocked for being / use of sock-puppet. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Subtropical-man ... You know i have made a lot of contribution in good faith , honestly if it meet Wikipedia criteria , personally i will defend the article ... Samat lib (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samat lib: [20] shows lifetime AfD history of 45 delete !votes and one merge !vote.

Two recent !votes were, "this article lack independent reliable sources" and "No evidence of notability , the article lack independent Reliable sources".  From these two !votes, it appears that you don't understand the difference between notability and article sourcing. 

Your !vote here is unclear.  What do you mean "notability not found"?  Where did you look?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- as an alleged member of the Deletionist Gang^(TM), I'd like to add that some may view this nomination as "evidence-based editing" & "adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I'm going to add this to my Hard-line Anti-Nazi^(TM) label. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Hayward[edit]

Ashton Hayward (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:NPOL. Office is not high enough for an automatic pass and all coverage is local.John from Idegon (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no provision in NPOL or GNG that discounts local coverage. In addition, he has been covered nationally. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See WP:POLOUTCOMES John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how an essay trumps the guidelines. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OUTCOMES documents the actual state of consensus about how the guidelines apply in actual practice. This is not a case of an essay "trumping" the guidelines; the essay serves to clarify where consensus stands about what the guidelines actually mean in specific situations where there might be differences of opinion about that. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat, then I have a difference of opinion I guess. I simply disagree that someone with significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources isn't notable enough. I'm not someone who just votes keep on every AfD. I nominate a lot of articles for deletion. I would never nominate an article that meets WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But where do we have significant coverage being shown here? All that's been shown here is one piece of routine campaign coverage of the type that will exist for every mayoral election regardless of who the candidates are or aren't, three dead links whose headlines indicate that they were also routine campaign coverage, one dead link whose headline betrays that it was far more about his wife than about him, and one video clip of him giving soundbite about a topic other than himself on the news. How is any of that enough to clear the GNG bar? Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat, that's a fair question. I did a Google search and assumed they were included in the article. From Google, there is significant coverage in the Pulse, pnj.com, wuwf.org, Studer Community Institute, BlabTV, indystar.com, weartv.com, nydailynews.com, Huffington Post, and Business Observer Florida. And that's just the first page. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage is routine to Hayward's election, and some of it more related to the situation under which he was elected than anything else. The article lacks the level of sourcing we need to justify having an article for a mayor of a city of about 50,000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While 50K is certainly large enough to get a mayor kept if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it's not large enough to give him an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as a mayor. But the volume and depth of sourcing present here is not enough to get him over the bar, and the MSNBC link shown by Ramaksoud2000 above doesn't bolster the case either — it's a clip of him giving talking head on the news about Donald Trump, not coverage which has Hayward as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. 51,000 is not large by any means for a city. WP:NPOL only addresses likelihood of being notable, not actual notability. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 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 redirect to Sony_Xperia#Smartphones. (non-admin closure) Yash! 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Xperia E5[edit]

Sony Xperia E5 (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)

See discussion at WP:COIN. Duplicated by Sony Xperia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sony_Xperia#Smartphones. Plenty of sources out there, but I don't see a need for an article about every model when they can all be covered in one. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sony_Xperia#Smartphones. Based on the creator's history and their use of IP addresses, this and the other articles created appear to be attempts at spam although less well concealed than so we have had in the past. Even if they are not spam and are simply the user's field of interest, they don't qualify for stand-alone articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete. Coming here from WP:COIN. I put proposed deletion tags on some of the other Sony Experia model articles; there's a nice table at Sony Xperia which is more useful than stubs for each model. Trying to get the editor to engage on talk, but so far, no success. John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Sony Xperia#Smartphones. Fails WP:PRODUCT.- MrX 19:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grønlid School[edit]

Grønlid School (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 an article about a remote Norwegian one-room schoolhouse— none of the references appear to include in-depth discussion of the subject by reliable independent secondary sources. I don't see anything in the article's content to explain why the school is notable, and the refs don't convince me of this either. KDS4444 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is not quite a one-room schoolhouse, but nearly so, and is a Norwegian historic site of obvious importance, including for German occupation during World War II. This is a helluva lot more historic and interesting than all 52 one-room schoolhouses in New York State having Wikipedia articles (several of which I created). I'd much rather visit this one. See Category:One-room schoolhouses for Wikipedia's lopsided coverage of one-room schoolhouses (all or nearly all in the U.S.). It does not appear to be listed on any specific historic register, but the controversy about its preservation makes it all the more newsworthy, as happens with many U.S. historic sites that are found eligible for listing but are not listed. I added the article to WikiProject Norway and to WikiProject Historic sites; hopefully it can get some more attention and be included into appropriate corresponding list-article(s) of historic sites in Norway, if we have them yet. --doncram 02:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It certainly meets the GNG, and I feel that the content here is definitely relevant and of obvious importance. That article itself isn't formatted that well, but that is no reason for a deletion - it isn't unreadable or unsalvageable by any stretch of the imagination. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• TheMagikCow, could you give some of the sources that make you say that the school meets the GNG? I'm having difficulty finding sources, but that's possibly only because of language issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Sure! This [21] is a site from the Cultrual Encyclopaedia. This is a tertiary source, but is does show that others are interested. This source (Kleiva, Ivar (1973). Gulen in gammal and new time: gards- and ættesoga. Volume 1 . Gulen. p. 95. ISBN 8271010204) also covers relevant material, and so does this source (Fjørtoft, Jan Egil: Tyske kystfort i Norge. Tromsdalen 1982.). TheMagikCow (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added coordinates to the article from the Norwegian language Wikipedia article on the school and clarified the wording about the relationship of the school to three hamlets it served (it is equidistant to the three, as can be seen in Google maps). I added wikilinks and did some other editing. Of the three, only Rutledal currently has an article; Brosvik and Rutletangane currently are redlinks. Students would have had to come from Rutletangane partway by boat, besides the fact that walking was no doubt uphill in the snow both ways for all three. :) --doncram 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 165[edit]

Bill 165 (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 bill fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Every piece of legislation that exists in every jurisdiction that passes legislation is not automatically a suitable article topic; reliable sourcing must be present to show that the topic is noteworthy. Creator also needs to be aware that pieces of legislation are titled with their short form name, not their bill number — every single state or province in North America will have its own completely different "Bill 165" within the life of its current legislature, another completely different "Bill 165" several years ago during the life of its previous legislature, and then another completely different "Bill 165" a few years into the future after the next election resets the bill numbering again. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @GeoffreyT2000: You say that this article fails wp:gng which I believe is code for not enough wp:Reliable sources? If so I wonder if you tried to find such sources before nominating this article for deletion. The following is a partial list of articles I found by a simple google news search:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-introduce-regulations-for-home-inspections/article31443164/

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/08/17/ontario-to-regulate-home-inspectors.html

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/04/04/ontario-plans-to-regulate-home-inspectors-this-year.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ontario-home-inspectors-regulations-minister-licence-1.3726419

https://www.reminetwork.com/articles/ontario-proposes-home-inspector-licensing-law/

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-government-table-home-inspector-licensing-legislation-1004098466/

Is this enough or do I have to provide more? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Have you got a source for the legislation actually passing third reading and being signed into law? Have you got a source for what makes this proposal significantly different from the way other provinces or US states regulate contractors? Have you got a source for, oh, anybody actually reacting to the proposal in any notable way besides "oh, okay"? Because so far, what you're showing us is "this is a thing that exists", not "this is a thing whose existence warrants dedicated coverage in an encyclopedia". Lots of laws and proposed laws exist in lots of places without having Wikipedia articles about them — what's needed for a proposed law to qualify for an article is evidence that it has some greater significance above and beyond the mere fact of existing as a proposed law, not just "a handful of sources verify that it exists". Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: RE:Have you got a..etc. etc -- No, have you? How is this relevant to this wp:AfD which is based on wp:GNG? Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

GNG is passed when the sources demonstrate something important and noteworthy about the topic, not when they merely demonstrate that the topic exists. Lots of people, organizations and things technically get enough coverage to pass GNG if "coverage of them exists" were all that sources actually had to demonstrate. We would, for instance, have to keep an article about every restaurant in existence if local coverage demonstrating that the restaurant exists were all it took, and coverage demonstrating a reason why the world needed to care wasn't necessary. We would have to keep articles about teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes if "sources exist" were all it took, and coverage which demonstrated any actual pass of our notability criteria for sportspeople were unnecessary. We would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got media coverage a few years ago for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard, if "sources exist" were all it took and there were no need to demonstrate that the context she was getting coverage for was encyclopedically noteworthy.

Lots of things can technically be sourced over GNG without actually being an appropriate article topic — what the sources need to demonstrate to fulfill GNG is a reason why the thing is important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, not just that the thing exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on bearcat are you a judge? The plaintiff has right to due diligence. Let this guy prove his case before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that the merits of the case stand for themselves. Rebekahalnablack

• Delete. I'm going with delete for now, without prejudice to it being recreated if the law turns out to be notable. I see that it's newsworthy, but that's a much lower bar. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This page has been moved 3 times since this wp:AfD started. . Ottawahitech (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

• Keep (as creator) I have not seen any compelling arguments here for this proposed deletion? I have pinged the nomintor with a question almost a week ago, but have received no reply even though the nom was active on Wikipedia nominating a bunch of other pages for deleton during that time. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

• Delete. I find Bearcat's argument quite compelling. Allowing this article to stand without any indication of what makes the legislation notable (something beyond the mere fact of its existence) implies that Wikipedia requires articles for all legislation in all jurisdictions, provided there was news coverage at the time. None of the references listed above show any indication of what is notable about this bill. nerdgoonrant (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was a proposed private member's bill that was rejected like most private members' bills. Looking at [22], and [23], this article is not about the actual legislation proposed by the Ontario government minister, which is almost certain to pass, but the bill refered to in one sentence ("In April 2016, Liberal MPP Han Dong introduced a private member's bill to license home inspectors, but it never made it past committee. "). If this is kept through WP:GNG, then that would mean that any bill proposed at any top-level subnational legislature even if defeated would be notable. This might mention a line in Han Dong's article, because it is rare that PMB's even get press attention, but it doesn't need its own article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Patar knight: Yes this article is probably misnamed (suggestions?), but as I have shown above it does not fail wp:GNG as the nom claims, and it is a piece of valuable information (or could be if it is allowed to develop) for those who are currently considering purchasing a home in the province of Ontario where an Offer to Purchase normally contains a condition of passing a Home inspection.

I know most of the people participating here have no interest in real estate or its coverage on Wikipedia, they are more interested in wiki-lawyering deletion criteria. However, if this goes on much longer, the only editors left here will be paid editors who will continue to flood this place with spam. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

No it's not misnamed, and your sources are a good explanation for why this fails the GNG. This article is not about the proposed government legislation which may be notable in the future, it's about a past bill that has never made it out of the committee stage and will never be passed because it's a PMB from a member of the governing party being superseded by future government-backed legislation. It's theoretically possible for a PMB to meet the GNG, but generally such a PMB should at least because actual law, which this bill will never become.

This type of bill is simply not notable, and your sources demonstrate that. The G&M, 1st Torstar article and CBC only mention the bill in a sentence in their pieces, while the 2nd Torstar article and the Reminetwork article don't mention this bill at all. The only source that covers it in anything more than passing detail is the Canadaunderwriter source, but one source isn't good enough to establish notability. The sources could be used in an article titled, say Home inspection in Ontario, or whatever the government legislation/agency created by that legislation will be called. However, such an article shouldn't be created until the bill is passed, or at least tabled. I have already mentioned this PMB in Han Dong's article, because it's rare for PMBs to get this much media coverage at all, and that's really all the coverage this needs on Wikipedia at the moment. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight:, Are you saying that it is premature to have an article titled Home inspection in Ontario because legislation about it is still in the works? This in spite of the fact that an Offer of purchase and sale in Ontario has a standard clause in it requiring it? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me BTW aren't you lucky that no one has reverted your edit at Han Dong (politician) saying it is wp:UNDUE which I am sure would have happened to me if I was the editor. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Empire Film Group[edit]

Hidden Empire Film Group (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)

Deceptively written promotion from non notable company. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing does not go beyond mentions, with some sources not even mentioning them. The awards listed were not won by this company. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the company has two films which pass the threshold for notability - Meet the Blacks and Supremacy (film). They had theatrical release and reviews. Not good reviews, and not much revenue, but they did show to paying customers in commercial theaters. But the company itself would fail WP:CORP. The company should get a brief mention in the film articles, but there's not enough for a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deon_Taylor John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's an abundance of references on the entry itself. Googling shows other coverage, even if the first page is Facebook and social media results. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HiAsdf etc, what other accounts have you edited with, which ones are blocked? Which accounts edits that I have noticed have led to your current stalking of me? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - They've earned awards made notable work, good or not. The company can meet WP:CORP, the solution here is expansion, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can they meet WP:CORP? Expansion with what? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They've made a few things with a few notable actors, and it seems like there are more to come. There's probably also more information regarding the current work they've done. South Nashua (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to genuine independent notability and substance, simply a basis of awards is not an automatic acceptance of notability, and then there's the matter of there being no automatic inherited notability; there's simply nothing its own genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The features and people associated with them may/do merit articles, but the company itself? No. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – more WP:ARTSPAM by WP:COI accounts in spite of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The company's works might be notable, but the sources only mention the company itself in passing. 1292simon (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that as per the nomination for deletion, elements of WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E pertain to this article (e.g. "The event (murder) is not significant, and the individual is even less so", "Per nomination above", "... very little press coverage (I ran news archive searches) If there is such a thing as a non-notable, "routine" murder, this was it"). Additionally, another user has stated that the subject is non-notable (" a non-notable murderer"). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Frederick Spears[edit]

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

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

Per WP:CRIME. WP:PROD'ed by User:Champion initially here, but WP:PROD deleted by User:Mathieu109 here without any discussion. The issue here isn't necessarily quality, reliability, verifiability, or frequency of sources, but determining WP:Notability for articles about convicted criminals. Although Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria may be fulfilled, article seems to fit into Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, discounting subject's WP:Notability to be published in the article mainspace. Filing WP:AfD per #8 in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. JustBerry (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This event is viscerally compelling to many people. Why not include something of so much significance?

Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The event (murder) is not significant, and the individual is even less so. At best, he can be including in some list of murderers or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nomination above. --JustBerry (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sources. seems to have received plenty of extensive coverage for being a (Non-significant) murder.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete guy killed his ex-girlfriend. convicted. very little press coverage (I ran news archive searches) If there is such a thing as a non-notable, "routine" murder, this was it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable murderer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails the subject specific guideline. No consensus that the sources provided below are sufficient for GNG. Appears he has received only passing mentions in media. Agree this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lassana Faye[edit]

Lassana Faye (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)

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was rejected on the grounds that he has now played in the KNVB Cup. The cup appearance was not against a fully-pro-league club, meaning it does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't go as far as SALTing the article. It's only been deleted once before and created again in good faith. --Jimbo^[online] 14:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't go as far as salting though, he has been in the youth teams of many top division dutch teams and is now in the senior squad at SBV Vitesse, playing in one game in the cup. He is only 18 and I would be highly suprised if he still fails WP:NFOOTY in a years time. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played in the KNVB Cup and articles like : 1, 2, 3 to start indicate WP:SPORTCRIT. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not repeated deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON is likely, so no need to salt. Otherwise, fails both WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG Spiderone 10:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Friedman[edit]

Jonas Friedman (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 with the following rationale: "Removed proposed deletion. The article should not be deleted because the individuals credits of composing for some of the highest rated television series in the last two years are evident from IMDB and other websites."

However, searches turned up nothing on the engines to show that they pass WP:GNG, and I can find no evidence that they pass WP:NMUSIC. I understand he's accomplished, and he's worked on some notable items, but notability isn't transferred or inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the 'Criteria for composers and lyricists' it state that Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
• Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
• Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
• Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
• Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
• Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

This individual has credit for writing or co-writing music for notable compositions as found in search engines from IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4970150/), www.JonasFriedman.com, www.Briankeanemusic.com, http://classdismissedmovie.com/about-the-film/the-team/ --Bearmee1 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The question then is whether he has composed a significant amount of the music for the notable shows. Our article on the Music of The X-Files does not mention him. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 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 EMMA for Peace. (non-admin closure) Yash! 22:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Petrocelli[edit]

Paolo Petrocelli (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)

BLP with weak primary sources. Seems NN or WP:TOOSOON, with claim of notability as "co-founder" of NN committee, plus borderline notable EMMA for Peace. Widefox; talk 15:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC) (note creator is a blocked sock, of improperly disclosed paid editor User:Nmwalsh recently blocked for socking, so the presumption is this is an undisclosed paid article violating the WP:TOU. Also EMMA for Peace created by Khocon who claims COI on Paolo Petrocelli at User:Khocon). Widefox; talk 15:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources including La Voce Di New York, Yale University, Ganzomag aren't primary. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems very much like part of a walled garden. The organizations used to claim notability don't seem notable in their own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to EMMA for Peace, based on current sourcing. The three best sources are mentioned above. Jury's out on whether La Voce di NY is reliable without doing some digging on its editor's background, but at least it looks clean. Yale is not an independent source, as they hired him as a visiting fellow. Ganzo looks like a regular blog—not reliable. We're left with other junk coverage. I'd redirect to EMMA for Peace, though it looks like that will be up for deletion too (better a redirect than nothing), and there's nothing to redirect to re: his role in the National Commissions for UNESCO. czar 22:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as specified, as a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Colontonio[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable for find any secondary sources to support notability. The article sources fan-sites, interviews, self-published bios and dead links. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any sources to suggest subject meets WP:BAND. Ajpolino (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Artist is released on labels such as Universal, Vandit (Germany) , Armada ( BIGGEST EDM label on earth) and many more reliable ones. Hes played in 23 countries at major festivals ( Sunrise festival , Poland) ALL of which is documented via blogs, pictures and videos. Artists has been featured in Countless publications including DJmag the biggest DJ publication on planet earth. Artist has collaborated with some of the biggest EDM artists on earth including Tiesto, Armin Van Buuren dn Paul Van Dyk to name a few. Not sure why hes being singled out for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda Jenning (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list some of the secondary sources that have written about him? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure .. working on that right now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda Jenning (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Just made some improvements to the sourcing on this article. I believe the main contributor is confused to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoblinBoy (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brenda Jenning: and @GoblinBoy:. Thanks for contributing! The reason the article Tom Colontonio got brought here is because an editor was concerned there may not be sufficient sources for us to include this topic in the encyclopedia. For a person to have an article on Wikipedia, they must have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (guideline). For musicians, we generally use these criteria to help us determine if an article should be included on a given musician/music group. If you can find references that are independent of the subject (i.e. something not written by the artist or on the artist's behalf) that show that the artist meets the criteria linked above, then you'll find other editors are happy to change their minds, keep the article, and help you improve it. This is not a referendum on how great Tom Colontonio is. Instead it's a discussion about whether or not sufficient sources exist for us to maintain an encyclopedia article on him. If sufficient sources do not exist, perhaps they will exist sometime in the future and the page can be remade then. If you're interested in going that route, we can move the page to your user page in the interim. If you have questions about the process, feel free to ask them at WP:Teahouse or on my talk page. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thanks AjPolino I am adding plenty of sources now. Also his website is very extensive as well. being a music lover myself in his genre I can appreciate his work as well as his achievements!

I had a look at some of the sources you have added and they won't contribute a lot to enhancing the notability of this biography. One source you added didn't even mention this person, and the others were YouTube links and personal blogs. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Can you find any reliable secondary sources? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 not sure what source your referring too not mentioning his name? Personal blogs? please clarify as all the blogs mentioned are legitimate news outlets for Electronic music. I referenced DJmag which is the bible of dance music and published globally. Its no less credible a source as CNN etc. His website and twitter (verified) are also there Maybe this isn't a topic your fully educated on therefore your assuming the citations aren't credible enough? This seems almost personal honestly as MANY Dj's on here have way less or similar content as he does. Even artists named in his article! Not trying to be confrontational here but clearly hes a legit music artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoblinBoy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clear advertising in which it's clear campaigning and the comments here show, and also show the fact there's no considerations of how we actually accept articles, instead simply of what we should change in considerations instead, but that's not the case we'll take to mind with said campaigning. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As seen in the page history, I spent some time trying to "rescue" this article, but the article is still based on passing mentions, blogs and non reliable sources, so fails WP:MUSICBIO.
  Comparison with other (unnamed) articles is irrelevant as such comparisons are invalid as per WP:Other stuff exists.
  I tagged the page COI based on Brenda Jenning's SPA, GoblinBoy is another SPA as is User:Redsro whose only contribution was removing the AFD notice. Possible co-ordination which may merit an SPI? - Arjayay (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – promotional article contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a means of self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]