The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cavarrone 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Jordan[edit]

Mic Jordan (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)

• @Yadáyiⁿga and KATMAKROFAN: Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Really bad speedy call. Meets WP:N with the sources in the article. (BBC, Wisconsin Public are the best). Hobit (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At 03:21, 7 November 2016‎ User:KATMAKROFAN tagged Mic Jordan for speedy-delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, the references are there, as Hobit says, and it's quite a nicely written little article. The reference in The Advocate for me resonates slightly with the Featured Article on yesterday's Main Page – From The Doctor to my son Thomas. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and the source above is still not substantial enough for genuinely convincing this article of both keeping and meaningful improvements, the article itself barely has any claims of significance and none of it amounts to substance, thus notability has not been established. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SwisterTwister: Could you comment on the two sources (in the article) which I mention? Between those 3 sources, I don't see how we aren't well above WP:N but I'm curious about your thoughts. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hobit. Expand and merge into anything about the Redskins naming controversy. South Nashua (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G5 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sor Piseth[edit]

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

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

Article of a Footballer that fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Inter&anthro (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Inter&anthro (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Inter&anthro (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment most if not all of the sources in this article do not even refer to Sor Piseth, but to Um Vichet. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The article may also be WP:G5 eligible as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:08, 8 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rozen Maiden characters[edit]

List of Rozen Maiden characters (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 notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The purpose of having a subarticle is to detail info of the characters that are otherwise wasting too much space on the main article. There is a total of three anime adaptions and two manga series. There is hardly enough space to merge all relevant info of the characters into the main article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see any convincing arguments here, this character list is an extension of the plot that otherwise couldn't fit on the main page. There are characters for example that are anime/manga only. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am changing my opinion to Delete, Dragon did a great job at condensing the characters into the main article here. Lets face it... the article IS all WP:OR meaning that even if it is recreated the info would still be re-added in another shape or form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I request that the nominee be barred from starting a 3rd AFD of this subarticle if the result is KEEP. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith here, I may disagree with the deletion but do not think it is in malice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to check the archive of the previous AFD one more time. Weren't you a participant on the 1st AFD as well? Clearly, I don't think the nominee understands that the concensus for this AFD is not going to be different than the first one. In short, he is wasting everyone's time when there are much more articles out there that have way more grounds for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way you're counting the media adaptation sequels as separate medias to justify the existence of this list is incorrect. Asides from that, only one "anime only" character is notable enough to be kept in the character list. You haven't dealt with enough non-notable fictional character lists to see how the merge is beneficial; like how I was able to take only the main characters from List of The Irregular at Magic High School characters (111 kb of text), and placed it within The Irregular at Magic High School. Are you an expert on the series, do you know the plot well enough to know what characters should be kept or not? Have you seen the history when Ryulong just overturned the consensus of February 2014? I am free to nominate this article for AFD since much time has passed; this is not disruptive and I am doing this to improve the overall quality of the Rozen Maiden articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that regardless of what justification you might have had, this nomination will turn out to be exactly like it was from 3 years ago. Good luck with trying to waste space. Nobody's gonna buy that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you are so dedicated in "improving" the content, you might as well just copy whatever edits you made on the main page into the subarticle. After all, that is what subarticles are for. Instead, you just chose to waste even more time in making an AFD that is 99% guaranteed to fail, based on the last nomination. If you failed to delete it last time, you will surely fail this time, too. It's common sense. Only push for a 2nd AFD if you feel that the arguments presented in the previous AFD were weak and irrelevant, like these nominations, for instance. Bear in mind, most of us do not agree with your idea of "improvement", so I suggest that you withdraw this AFD to save yourself from embarrassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, tone down the aggression Sk8erPrince, we're all here to work together on an encyclopedia, not yell at each other. Consensus can change and three years is plenty of time for a re-nomination. On the other hand, you should take your own advice with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination), where you nominated an article two days after the last one failed. Opencooper (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did not fail. No consensus is an unacceptable outcome, especially if there's barely any participation to begin with. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete DragonZero is correct when they say that eyes outside WP:A&M are needed. Offshoot articles might be a precedent, but like here they quickly devolve into dumping grounds for original research. One thing that used to happen in the past was that we had "X in popular culture" articles because the authors of the main articles would rather not deal with such content. However, that is what is needed and here DragonZero has merged any usable information on the main characters into the parent article. While main characters of series are often notable, side characters usually lack any coverage to write about them without devoting to original research or synthesis. This is the case here. Lastly we should remember why articles are split off in the first place: because of size; the content of this article would have been deleted in the main article because it is OR, or else the article would have never gotten to GA. Opencooper (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I think it's something our project (A&M) should debate further and thoroughly (some time ago I had a brief debate with TheFarix for the sake of record [1], [2]). Most of these lists are just "let's get rid of content we don't want in the main page". Our policy on stand-alone lists says "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." I think most lists are written in a completely WP:IN-U perspective and don't comply with WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight as it can be said they are "disproportionately long plot summaries" about characters. To justify a stand-alone list I think there should be significant content to create a "conception" and a "reception" section so it will be balanced between in-universe and out-universe content (ex. here and here). And to justify the inclusion of a character in the list it should be considered the screen time the character has within the series or if the part it plays within the series is important. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator put some character information into the main article early last year. [3] Then on the day he reverted someone's attempt to remove it three times, he decides to nominate this article for deletion, since the argument made in the edit summaries by the other guy was that all the information should just be linked to here. That is what is normally done. Dream Focus 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Characters were there since Rozen Maiden existed in my Sandbox (2013). [4] Nothing was taken from the list because it was all OR. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list article was created on March 2007 [5] Characters were added to the main article in one of the first edits there on May 2005. [6] As the article got larger, people just shifted the character list to a separate article is as common. A character section seems to have been added and removed from the main article at various times by different people over the years. Dream Focus 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let's settle this dispute once and for all and decide whether or not it's ultimately the best to keep this article and fix it, or merge it with the main article. Reverting edits like this is extremely tiresome, and honestly, I just want to get it over with already. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not establish notability, so it has no reason to exist at this time. TTN (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasonable WP:SS breakout of characters from a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gabriel Yuji's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fancruft, no third-party sources, in-universe content only (WP:NOTPLOT).  Sandstein  22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just want to remind editors that every "list of characters in x series" is a different case. These articles should be handled on a singular basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep, and the fact that "no third-party sources" is being used as a legitimate deletion rationale here leads me to suspect that somehow everyone was too lazy to WP:BEFORE when !voting. Found in just a 5-minute Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. There's definitely more out there, including Japanese sources, and the vast majority of anime reviews also include analysis on the characters. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing sources: Most of those links are merchandise such as dolls. This is a classic for anime/manga characters. Even though the characters of Tales of Graces also have merchandise, it's not notable enough to establish their creation. Those two character polls you listed were from ANN readers, and the second is from the streets of Akihabara. These polls were not from significant sources, and is something I've left our of various articles such as No Game No Life (It's been a while but I believe there were also street polls with the characters). Instead, it's better to focus on big polls in Japan, such as those hosted by TV networks or those yearly polls by Animage??? (What is it called again?) and Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi!. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise helps establish notability as it demonstrates that the character has achieved real-world popularity and recognition, as opposed to just in-universe mentions. While the polls may not be from a "significant" source, it was reported upon by Anime News Network, a WP:RS. All RS coverage counts towards notability (some a bit more than others), you can't just pick-and-choose what is usable and what isn't. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to userfy the article to work on it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in fixing up the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly Weak Keep I almost always vote to keep lists of characters from notable fiction franchises as I think the benefits are clear both for readers and the encyclopedia. This one is a little less clear as the main characters are adequately summarised on the main article. Still, I think deleting this would not benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to the main article's Characters section. Firstly, I've been through numerous character list AfDs like this. I first noticed how the main article already has a very large section for the characters: Rozen Maiden#Characters. That alone would probably be reason enough to delete. Then add to that the classic character list crux: the list has almost no sourcing. That too is usually enough for deletion. Thirdly, like mentioned, the depictions written are heavily plot and best fit for a fan wikia like always. Adding to the insult is the fact that there actually exists a comprehensive fan wikia with very detailed character bios. I've never seen a character list begging to be deleted more than this one. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean from an archivist's point of view, the information is all there at the fan wikia. If someone wants to find out about the characters or just googles them randomly, they'll find the comphrehensive fan wikia articles. In fact, our descriptions are substandard in comparison. We are doing a disservice to the people with our descriptions and list. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC
  • Changed vote to redirect, as there of course was the section listing the characters at the main article that the term should redirect to. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to main article characters section. All the character lists publicized by the anime focus on the 9 or so main characters already mentioned, not the 20-30 possible ones like some series publicize. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect Looking at the entries for individual characters, most of the ones not already covered on the parent article seem to be struggling to show their importance. Generally I'm in favour of separate character lists but in this case there doesn't seem to be any compelling content reasons for a separate article based on the text of the article. There is always the scope for improvement of course, but let's be honest character lists have never been a priority and by and large never attract any serious attention from experienced editors. I'm not against recreation if an editor can prove it's merits, but experience suggests that it won't happen.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:05, 13 November 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 Kanga Cricket League. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanga League 2009[edit]

Kanga League 2009 (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:NSEASONS, the competition isn't first-class cricket and most of the article is just stats/tables Joseph2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kanga Cricket League as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable to deletion when individual seasons aren't notable. Which this isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above - there is no attempt at a prose summary really. If there were then I might consider it worth keeping Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 9 November 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 Kanga Cricket League. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 Kanga Elite League[edit]

2013-14 Kanga Elite League (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:NSEASONS, as there is no prose about it and the league does not play first-class cricket Joseph2302 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't even have an article for the league itself, so individual seasons certainly aren't notable. If there were a league article, this should be redirected there per WP:NSEASONS but there isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Redirect To Kanga Cricket League per WP:NSEASONS which says that is preferable to deletion. I didn't realize the league had an article, but it's still not significant enough for individual seasons to be notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. No attempt at a prose summary to make it keepable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 9 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of India One Day International matches[edit]

List of India One Day International matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As with the other similar lists, if you want to find a result from any ODI India have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Then by given logic page List of Indian Test matches should also be deleted. Why this page is still exist then? Sdm2211 (talk) 8 November 2016 (IST)

• Other stuff exists is not a decent argument. Joseph2302 06:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well again I am stating page List of Indian Test matches is also WP:NONSTATS then why it is still exist? If page List of India One Day International matches is WP:NONSTATS then how List of Indian Test matches serves a purpose?? Sdm2211User talk:Sdm2211 15:57, 8 November 2016 (IST)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - not a valid reason for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not espncricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of Indian Test matches is also available on espncricinfo, so this page should also be deleted. Sdm2211User talk:Sdm2211 09:49, 9 November 2016 (IST)

Espncricinfo isn't Wikipedia. And Wikipedia isn't Espncricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sdm2211 You're only allowed to vote once, and please stop repeating the same thing. The India test page is also up for deletion. Also, do not remove valid votes from other people. Joseph2302 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and by all means provide an external link as part of a section on ODIs on the Indian team page Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire & Flesh[edit]

Fire & Flesh (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)

Completely unreferenced article about a band that doesn't meet WP:BAND. Was removed from WP:PROD BLP due to WT:BLPPROD. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as absolutely nothing here for substance and this is in fact speedy delete G11 material considering how advert-formatted it is, overall nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was unable to find any potential references. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, no sources, written like a promotional piece. I'm from the SFBA and bands like this are a dime a dozen. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 November 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 VocaLink#Zapp. MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zapp (mobile payments)[edit]

Zapp (mobile payments) (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)

Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was able to find a lot of sources for the company, including at least four in-depth sources that are very reliable [7], [8], [9], [10]. I could possibly be convinced to !vote merge into VocaLink but I don't see anything in the nomination other than a recommendation to delete based on promotion at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & redirect to VocaLink#Zapp where the subject is already being discussed in sufficient detail suitable for this otherwise unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this service to the existing subsection on the provider page at VocaLink#Zapp. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 7 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Knowles[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article tagged for more than 8 years regarding notabilty and sources. Apparently dead too, but nothing to source that either. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He sounds fairly notable from this extensive obituary in the Fulton County Daily Report and this one issued by the Georgia State University College of Law (which helps with WP:V, if not WP:N). Even though the article as written focuses mostly on the Dow Corning case, it seems like his civil rights work and his prisoner advocacy are at least equally important, if not more so. There is extensive coverage of his college time at Alabama, including his opposition to George Wallace as student body president, in this book, this piece and this book discuss his civil rights work, and there are articles describing his work on behalf of prisoners, including his time as director of the National Prison Project, here and here and here and here and here and here and here (in the "Judge Orders Reforms at New Mexico Pen" article on p. 3). And that's just with a fairly cursory search of five or ten minutes. The sourcing in the current article is inadequate, but this does seem to me like a legitimately notable subject whose article needs improvement, not deletion. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the logic of the other voter above. The article needs work, yes, but it definitely seems to me this person is notable. --Krelnik (talk) 18:22, 7 November 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica[edit]

Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica (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 is virtually just a list and seems poorly titled after seeing what the content on the page is. I may be jumping ahead with this but I feel like this type of article may not fit with Wikipedia's notability policy. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character)[edit]

Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Two episode character without any notability. Fram (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and/or redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot doesn't exist any more. There were errors, sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to merge? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see the image in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Gregory Wilmot in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot. No indication of independent notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply. No. Please save the image in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Gregory Wilmot in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or transwiki to an Upstairs, Downstairs wiki if such a thing exists. Bondegezou (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply. No. Please save the image in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Gregory Wilmot in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't repeat your plea over and over again, once is more than enough. It won't help in any case, we don't have articles to be able to host copyrighted images, it's probably the worst argument you could possibly use. Fram (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is wrong. Please see: Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005. Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Jack Dyson RFC (Upstairs, Downstairs character)[edit]

Lt. Jack Dyson RFC (Upstairs, Downstairs character) (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)

Character which only appears in one episode. Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and/or redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson doesn't exist any more. There were errors, sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to merge? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see the image in Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Jack Dyson in Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson. No indication of independent notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• reply List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson doesn't exist any more. There were errors, sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with all the other minor UD characters. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• reply Lt. Jack Dyson RFC is an important character. Please save the image in Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Jack Dyson in Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Please also see: Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005. Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Is an important character": why? He appears in one episode, and is mentioned in a book that exhaustively lists all episodes and characters; we get this by now. All this proves is that he is a character, not that he is an important one. Fram (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you see three episodes you will understand --ColeB34 (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making less sense with every reply. So, let's say I watch the first three episodes of UpDown, I will then understand why Dyson is an important character who is notable enough to have an article here? Really? Fram (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please see also Jack Dyson in "Upstairs, Downstairs Season Four". Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 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 Transformers. Keeping the history in case any material can be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maximal (Transformers)[edit]

Maximal (Transformers) (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 does not establish notability. The sources in the article appear to be pure fluff that do not provide significant coverage on the topic. TTN (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question@Montanabw: what is your suggested redirect target? I'm in agreement with you in principle. I'm just not as familiar with the Transformers universe to know if there is an article other than the main article that would be a good target?
• Delete and then Redirect as these have been established, as it is, as not convincing for their own articles because we're simply not a series-focused encyclopedia, and there wouldn't be anything to suggest an otherwise better article. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Redirect to Transformers. My take on these types of articles about toys and cartoon-type characters is that deletion just leaves a redlink that is bait for the article to be recreated (and AfD'd) again, and again... it is actually wise to keep the bluelink and do a redirect. There also appears to be a fair bit of content here, and some of it can probably be added to the main article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transformers per Montanabw. I agree with the reasoning. Redlinks on relatively popular subjects such as this invite recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 15 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bareos[edit]

Bareos (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 software. Almost no independent coverage; I found one source. Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability and sources:[edit]

• Bareos was already mentioned in at least 5 articles on en.wikipedia, before the Bareos article itself was started, now linked to the article.^[1]
• Bareos article on French Wikipedia exists since April 2016^[2]
• External media coverage include (listed on the links / reference list of the article):
  • Admin Magazine^[3]
  • Admin Magazine^[4] (German)
  • Bareos coverage at Linux Magazine (German edition), several print and online articles since 2013^[5]
  • Bareos 16.2 review at iX (magazine), issue 11/2016, p. 25^[6]
  • Bareos coverage at de:Pro-Linux, since 2013 various articles, last about 16.2 release^[7]
  • Bareos review at Russian habrahabr technology site^[8]
  • Bareos coverage at Russian Linux.org.ru with several articles 2014-2016^[9]
  • Ubuntu Server 16.04 LTS - Das umfassende Handbuch, Rheinwerk Verlag, ISBN 978-3-8362-4260-8, Pages 831-910: Backup heterogener Umgebungen mit »Bareos«, ^[10] (German)
  • Linux-Server, Galileo Computing (by Charly Kühast and de:Peer Heinlein), ISBN 978-3-8362-3020-9, Pages 262-278: Backup und Recovery mit Bacula/Bareos. (German)
• Other references
  • Bareos coverage at Russian OpenNet (website): http://www.opennet.ru/opennews/art.shtml?num=45399
• Other references
  • In December 2015 the inter-ministerial working group on free software of the French government (Socle Interministériel de logiciel libre) included Bareos on their recommendation list among 130 other open source programs.^[11]
  • Numerous (video-)blog posts about Bareos, here just some examples^{[12][13][14][15]}
  • Google search for 'bareos' lists > 60k results
  • Independent open source platform Open Hub affirms "High Activity" of the project.^[16]
• International conferences (excerpt) with presentations about Bareos:
  • Niels de Vos from Red Hat and Gluster co-maintainer at Open Source Backup Conference about Bareos and Gluster ^[17]
  • Bareos integration with open source tools at the Open Source Data Center Conference, Berlin, 2016: https://www.netways.de/index.php?id=3445#c44177
  • Bareos presentation at Paris Open World Forum 2013^[18]
  • Bareos presentation at FOSDEM, Brussels, 2014^[19]
  • Bareos presentation at Linux Professional Institute Europe meeting at Munich 2013^[20]
  • Bareos presentation on Red Hat's DevConf.cz, Brno, 2016^[21]

Gul.maikat (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability for inclusion in Wikipedia can be based only on reliable sources, not number of Google hits. Admin Magazine, Linux Magazin and OpenNet news may be reliable sources - I will review these later and try to find more, if there are any... Pavlor (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source mini-review:
    • Linux Magazin - seems to be reliable source, several short news about article subject = useable source
    • iX/heise.de - behind pay-wall, if most of the article is about Bareos = good source; if passing mention only = weak source
    • pro-linux.de - few news about article subject, seems to be one-man news page = somewhat weak source
    • Admin magazine - written of authors of Bareos = weak source
    • habrahabr.ru - seems to be blog = weak source
  • Conclusion: No good reliable sources - or only one (iX, hard to say, how broad coverage is there) and several short news (Linux Magazin). There is some coverage in reliable sources, but still too few, I fear. Pavlor (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The number Google gives at the top is meaningless. If you page through the search results, you find out how many distinct sources Google will actually show you. In this case, at this moment, it's 169. As for the presentations, notability doesn't come from people presenting their projects at conferences, but from evidence in independent reliable sources (not, generally, blog posts) that others have taken note of them, possibly as a result of those presentations. Largoplazo (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added another magazine and online-site(s). The wide range of international conferences with Bareos presentations (not only by Bareos project members) but also by recognized speakers from companies like Red Hat, Universities^[22] or Max Planck Society^[23], shows that the experts at the conferences' program committees see Bareos at least at 'notable'. Gul.maikat (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the admin-magazine piece is a detailed one, but look at the authors: two guys from Bareos, not an WP:INDY source. The fr wiki points to [11] which (although a passing mention) is a list of free software that the French administration is encouraged to use (by opposition to proprietary software); but Bareos' status in there is "O, in observation" which probably means the "administration modernization guys" are considering to use it in the future, not even recommending it right now. And the Linux-Magazin hits seem to all be very passing mentions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Shame on me, I missed authors of the Admin Magazine article. Pavlor (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem Pavlor, that's the kind of thing AfD is supposed to dig up. Also, may I respectfully suggest you take a look at WP:REDACT, which you do not seem to be aware of? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tigraan: Thanks, I know WP:REDACT, I only forget to use it... I think I will leave it as it is now. With my weak skills, I could add even more mess. I will be more careful next time. Pavlor (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, didn't think to check the authors on that article, which is the one I did cite in my deletion proposal. Thanks for catching it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added 3 more references, all German. An Admin Magazin article by an author not from Bareos, and two books, both with chapter about Bareos (80 pages and 16 pages) joerg.steffens
• Keep Looking at the references above, I see among others:
  • iX as IT professionals journal has a small but dedicated article about Bareos version 16.2.
  • 2 articles in Admin-Magazine (1 from project members but accepted by the editors, which shows that editors find the subject 'notable', plus another dedicated and multi-pages article by an independent author)
  • small, but dedicated and continuous (2013-2016) news-articles in Linux Magazine (online)
  • broad coverage in 2 printed books (both referenced above, written by recognized open source authors / journalists)
  • continuous news-items and articles in the two leading Russian open source portals OpenNet (website) and Linux.org.ru.
  • Program committees of several international recognized open source conferences accepted Bareos presentations from project members and others (IT Professionals, Universities, Max-Planck-Institutes, Red Hat)

Gul.maikat (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional spam and a classic case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

• Delete as still all only advertising this software, and none of it amounting to actual notable substance hence nothing to suggest acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 13 November 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 J._B._Priestley#Social_and_political_works. Nothing sourced to keep. Useful as redirect target. czar 05:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margin Released[edit]

Margin Released (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 a book review of what appears to be a non-notable book of reminiscences. No claim of notability, no notable content. KDS4444 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the reminiscences of a notable person carry notability by association. Valetude (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED. KDS4444 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a sefl-cited essay with no indications of notability or significance. Optionally redirect to the author's page J. B. Priestley. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Kalman[edit]

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

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

Does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG when you look at his "notable design" it seems anything but notable. Domdeparis (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the problem may be the first name. When I searched for him as Myron, I did find this long obit in the Globe and Mail. (I see the G&M lead called him "Mac" Kalman, but didn't find much more.) The Globe and Mail is Canada's leading national daily, and it's an impressively long article. Taken with the fact that he was given a centennial retrospective by McGill University prior to his death -- a feat more of longevity one might argue -- and his prolific work as listed in the Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950 ref, I'm inclined to say keep, if barely. He did a lot of mid-century residential and commercial buildings, schools, synagogues, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and the article is failing GNG. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I am withdrawing my vote. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Shawn in Montreal and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Yoninah (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be clear, the only source I actually found was this one. But it's a biggie. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the reliable, verifiable and encyclpedic sources in the article, the subject meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I expanded the article with reliable sources. After the deletion is closed, the page should be moved to Maxwell M. Kalman. Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate Mr. Kalman's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Based on the sources cited in the page.WikiEK (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important Quebec architect presented in a well-sourced article.--Ipigott (talk) 19:41, 14 November 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. Eventual merge could be discussed in the article's talk page, obviously. Cavarrone 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special Tactical Squad[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability and completely unreferenced. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is a valid one though, this unit does exist and does get news coverage, and presumably even more coverage in Chinese. I've pinged the originator asking them if they want it moved to Draft so they can take their time adding sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found the following potential sources: [12], [13], [14]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we sure this isn't a duplication of Special Duties Unit, another sub-unit of Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong)? I daresay a merge may be in order here, regardless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, wait, the Special Duties Unit is much older, sorry. Anyway, this seems to be a case where an editor has made a content fork unnecessarily: there is no mention of the Special Tactical Squad that I can see in the PTU main article, and that's why it remains an unreferenced orphan. I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong), claimed to be the parent organization, based on the poor state of this stub -- unless someone wishes to roll up their sleeves and really expand it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong). Obviously a valid topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasein Executive Search[edit]

Dasein Executive Search (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)

• 1. Looks spammy.
  2. A previous (now deleted) attempt at the same name was edited largely by User:CitizenNeutral and User:Anc123, and both of these 2 were sockpuppets of Morning277: see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morning277. Best check PicardJ , who started the current version.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A recruitment agency taking inspiration from Heidegger is unusual but I am not seeing evidence of notability. Reviewing the references provided: the O Tempo item is a routine announcement (see later comment on IMD), the Exame item is a brief Q&A with one of the company's principals, the Infomoney and both Hoje em dia items involve brief quotation from company officials in articles also quoting others in their trade, the Época item is a brief routine announcement and the IMD reference is a deadlink press release (IMD's website now lists another firm and not Dasein for Brazil: [15]). These aside, I can also see that a piece of their survey research was namechecked in The Economist  – via HighBeam (subscription required) in 2011. These are all examples of typical business-media coverage for a firm going about its business, but are not the in-depth coverage of the firm itself needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is just another recruiting firm. I can't see what's so special, and the sources don't prove anything. It seems to be little more than spam. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 19 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Papua New Guinea One Day International matches[edit]

List of Papua New Guinea One Day International matches (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 is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI PNG have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS again in a cricket article. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no attempt at prose and the list can be better served by being an external link on the team page to a specialist directory website which is going be far more reliable and up to date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia One Day International matches[edit]

List of Australia One Day International matches (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 is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much to say, I think the nomination hits the nail on the head. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI Australia have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph2302 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. WP:NOTSTATS has become a problem in the cricket portfolio. What has happened to narrative? Jack | ^{talk page} 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is what sites such as espncricinfo is for, not Wikipedia. WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Then why page List of Indian Test matches is not termed as WP:NONSTATS? Please explain me in DETAIL User talk:Sdm2211 16:02, 8 November 2016 (IST)

• Comment User:Sdm2211 Thanks for pointing that out. That page should not exist either under the same guidelines. I will nominate for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as with the other similar pages all up for AfD just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 9 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepora[edit]

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

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This provides no tourist information whatsoever, so reads nothing at all like a tourist webpage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've cited a source confirming a pass of WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isoo[edit]

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

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This reads like a slightly poorly written encyclopedia article, not a poorly written tourist webpage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've cited a source confirming a pass of WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be dealt by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 10:42, 8 November 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 Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and far as I can tell all prev years so far redirect back to the above target so am closng as redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Train Simulator 2017[edit]

Train Simulator 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable game with no sources or any indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States One Day International matches[edit]

List of United States One Day International matches (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 is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI USA have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Also, they've played 2 ODIs, and a list of 2 is not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS again in a cricket article. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and by all means provide a link to an external reference site which keeps these things in a much better state than we will ever do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:51, 10 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sifan[edit]

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

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have cited a source confirming that this passes WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 11:11, 8 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shalwan Pora[edit]

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

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have cited a source confirming that this passes WP:GEOLAND. These deletion nominations with a total lack of WP:BEFORE, and with the untrue statement that the articles are written like tourist webpages, are very tiresome and border on the disruptive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @86.17.222.157: well you are certainly welcome to your opinion but as an annonymos IP that refuses to make an account your accusations don't matter much to me. These were 4 articles that were complete duplicates of one another. The only things changed were the names of the towns and the numbers of people. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• First, I have the same concerns about the lack of BEFORE work, or understanding of all that WP:GEOLAND requires for named populated places, and I am not "an annonymos" (sic) account. Second, the notion that IP accounts somehow have less rights here is bollocks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: didn't say they have less rights. Also love how you made sure to point out my spelling typo to give yourself a leg up. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you lied when you said that this article was written like a tourist webpage you also just lied when you said that you didn't say that we unregistered editors have less rights. What else does "as an anonymous IP ... your accusations don't matter much to me" mean other than you consider me to have less rights? You have been advised on your talk page by an admin, Ritchie333, to avoid passing judgement on other people's work until you you have familiarised yourself with the basics of how things work on Wikipedia, but have obviously chosen to ignore that advice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Legally recognised populated villages should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The article is currently linked from the main page, so please re-nominate when this is no longer the case. If you believe the problem with the article is urgent, please make a post at WP:ERRORS.(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water bottle flipping[edit]

Water bottle flipping (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 absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this article. Water bottle flipping is a trivia at best if not only a fad. I cannot see how this article participates in human knowledge in the encyclopedic sense, I don't even understand how this reached DYK and the main page. This is making Wikipedia look like any random internet website on social trivia. If we let this kind of article stay on Wikipedia, we are effectively opening the floodgate to any and all fad with no discernible end to what should be included. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nov. 7 DYK – This inanity was extremely annoying as a Main Page DYK. Sca (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca I guess you support the deletion then? Iry-Hor (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. Sca (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - More than 50 different unique authors of the article found it notable enough to edit. That should speak volumes, even if I do find the appearance in DYK a bit odd. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We have articles for things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, that was just a one time viral "fad", and while that did raise money for charity, it is the same concept. MBlairMartin (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 7 November 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 Jat people. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahiya (India)[edit]

Dahiya (India) (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 page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jat people. Save what little editing history there is. Someone can always expand it later. Montanabw^(talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G4. Just Chilling (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Asher[edit]

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

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

Recently deleted via AfD. Non-notable artist/composer/writer etc etc with only one notable source in article, being "Rolling Stone" magazine. Google search comes up with nothing, other than website of said artist. Nordic Nightfury 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for exactly the same reasons as before – I said "Fails WP:COMPOSER as it all appears to be inherited notability: the song being notable and charting doesn't make him automatically notable. And even most of the songs listed in the article fail WP:NSONG notability themselves, despite their blue links (often to an unrelated article): "Mood Ring" is just an extra track on the Japan-only version of the Britney Spears album, "I" is one of five tracks on an EP, the Aaron Carter song didn't chart, etc." I don't see anything to make me change my opinion, there is no major coverage of Mr Asher himself apart from the occasional passing mention (the Rolling Stone article and second Billboard reference make no mention of Mr Asher at all). The author is an SPA who just works on getting Jon Asher-related articles onto Wikipedia and is quite possibly Mr Asher himself. Purely WP:PROMO. Richard3120 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is another AfD for this really needed? I did not see the previously deleted version, but from the comment given by Richard3120 it looks as if this is just a recreation of a previously deleted article which probably could have just been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for reasons of recreation; I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per G4 and also does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshore Drive (Ottawa)[edit]

Bayshore Drive (Ottawa) (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)

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bayshore, Ottawa as a search term mentioned in the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although Baywater Drive is mentioned in the article it's only mentioned once and it's not very informative, Usually I would go with Redirect but in this case it's just confusing & IMHO it won't serve any purpose so best off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stittsville Main Street (Ottawa)[edit]

Stittsville Main Street (Ottawa) (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 notability claimed and no sources. Domdeparis (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 18:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Stittsville, Ontario as a search term mentioned in the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable road. MB 02:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 14 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson Side Road[edit]

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

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

Not notable in anyway whatsoever! Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with nom. I verified it exists on the map, but why is it notable? MB 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 14 November 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. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively in favour of removing the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Yan (executive)[edit]

Tang Yan (executive) (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, WP:MILL executive. Also WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and author's sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Momo (software). This page does look like a CV, so a redirect to his apparently notable company seems like the best option.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. I don't think a redirect is necessary at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Peekskill[edit]

Out of Peekskill (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:FICT and specifically WP:GNG sigcov and secondary sources guidelines. Only link attributed to WP:NWSRC is hand-keyed data related to article in Variety magazine, and googling article title, magazine and date does not produce a WP:RS to verify quote.

Topic significantly detailed in List of The Facts of Life episodes article. AldezD (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar WP:FICT/WP:GNG issues:

• Rough Housing (The Facts of Life) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AldezD (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. These may have been important episodes in the show's story line, but there's no coverage that I can see in reliable sources. Of course, it's a lot harder to find any kind of mention 30+ years later, but there's usually some kind of mention in Google Books or the Google News Archive. I did find this retrospective on the series at Entertainment Weekly, which briefly mentions a few episodes. There's also this brief critique of how the pilot tackled a tomboy character. These sources are certainly promising, but there isn't really enough to go on for an entire article. I think these sources can be used in the main article and the list of episodes to expand them without problem. If someone locates offline sources, I don't see any reason why we can't recreate these articles. Right now, though, I think they're best left to Wikia and TV.com, which aren't saddled with the requirement to find significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 10 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimiter Marinov[edit]

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

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

Lack of general notability, complete lack of sources, semi-translated, concerns for self-advertising - not to mention it is also Dimitar, not Dimiter. Either way, this is a reality TV participant and not a politician, and lacks any notability for a separate article. For comparison - among the other candidates running in this election are a clairvoyant and a former criminal. Skycycle (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Skycycle (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is poorly written article about a person who has no notable status as a politician. Domdeparis (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced article on a person who has been regularly defeated in his runs for political office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 9 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Skillicorn[edit]

Allen Skillicorn (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 know the election will only be a couple weeks away, and I know that there is probably a 99% change of Skillicorn winning the election. However, he has not yet been elected, and he has done nothing, as of the moment, that is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Until he wins, the article should be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: As others have already pointed out, Skillicorn has won his election. Now he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time I first saw this article a couple of weeks ago while nominating several of the creator's other new articles about unelected Illinois legislative candidates for deletion, this article contained the claim that Skillicorn is a former member of the legislature who left office but is now running to return for a second kick at the can. I'm not an expert on Illinois politics and had no substantive reason to doubt that the statement was true (I'm Canadian, so there's just one state legislator in the entire United States that I could name off the top of my head without consulting a list to do the "oh, wait, yeah, I think I have heard of that one before too" thing first), so on the basis of that claim I left it alone with some maintenance tags — but now that 1990sguy has disputed the claim, I googled Skillicorn and indeed can't find any confirmation that he ever served a prior term in the legislature, because even the legislature's own list of its own members in the 2005-07 term doesn't include him. As always, however, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: if a person does not already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they do not qualify for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat and thereby become a holder of a notable office. And even if he does win the seat and become notable on that basis, the article will still have to be significantly rewritten from the quasi-campaign brochure format it's following right now. So no prejudice against recreation on or after November 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. (Prior discussion, for the record, is about a different person of the same name, so has no bearing on this at all.) Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Didn't notice that. Is there a way we can change the article to make clear that the two Allen Skillicorns' are different people? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this context it's not necessary. The first one got deleted, so as long as the fact that they're two different people is clarified in this discussion so that people know that "Speedy G4" won't work as a deletion argument, we don't need to do anything special to the article. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Due to low participation, this discussion was still open as of election day, and Skillicorn did indeed win his seat. Accordingly, this does now need to be kept, and merely flagged for content and referencing repair. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bearcat says, he did win the seat. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted Deleted after I speedy tagged it (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EShakti[edit]

EShakti (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)

May not be notable; no reliable secondary sources. Reads like an advertisement and is not possible to fix. Okamialvis (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; an overly detailed product brochure in the guise of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 9 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stock Canadians[edit]

Old Stock Canadians (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 phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Non notable IMO.   Aloha27  talk  15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a phrase that was used once and is not used to describe an ethnic group in published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge a redacted version to Canadian federal election, 2015 or elsewhere. Although presented as an article about ethnicity, this is clearly not an ethnicity article. If a suitable target is found, use of the term and its relevance should be merged into that target (perhaps Canadian federal election, 2015), but the original research and synthesis present in this article should be excised. Mindmatrix 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. It's a specific example of a generic expression, defined here at the Oxford online dictionary:

old-stock: adjective, Designating a person or people whose ancestors have lived in a certain country or area for several generations.

Origin - Late 19th century ; earliest use found in The New York Times.

We don't have articles about Red-headed Canadians, or Guitar-playing Canadians, why Old stock? The only reason this article exists is because it garnered a few days of media notice when used by the then Prime Minister; see (WP:NOTNEWS) and (WP:PERSISTENCE). I have added a single line for (September 17 under "Conservatives") to the appropriate section of the appropriate article: Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies, which I propose is proportional to its significance. If the decision here is keep I will go back and link it. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, others have said it well. Unlike the long-established and notable concept of Pure laine in my home province, this was a momentary, short-lived controversy. And I'd be surprised if Harper really had in mind to appeal only to those whose parents emigrated here prior to 1900 -- but then much of what he did puzzled me. Anyway, European Canadian isn't the same. Pure laine is too distinct. I agree a redirect to Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies is best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies per my comments at Talk:Old Stock Canadians. Meters (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • strike redirect pending current rewrite by User:E.M.Gregory per discussion below Meters (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Change to keep after nice rewrite. Now more than sufficient sources to show the notability and prior use of the term, and the article no longer attempts to define this as an ethic group. Meters (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. --Moxy (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• John Erik Fossum; Paul Magnette; Johanne Poirier (2009). The Ties that Bind: Accommodating Diversity in Canada and the European Union. UBC. p. 285. ISBN 978-90-5201-475-3.
• Dirk Hoerder (2000). Creating Societies: Immigrant Lives in Canada. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-7735-6798-6.
• Cecil Foster (2007). Blackness and Modernity: The Colour of Humanity and the Quest for Freedom. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 349. ISBN 978-0-7735-7581-3.
• Reva Joshee; Lauri Johnson (2011). Multicultural Education Policies in Canada and the United States. UBC Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-7748-4117-7.
• Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann (2003). Compassionate Canadians: Civic Leaders Discuss Human Rights. University of Toronto Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-8020-3664-3.
• Nina Bascia; Alister Cumming; Amanda Datnow; Kenneth Leithwood; David Livingstone (2008). International Handbook of Educational Policy. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-4020-3201-1.
• Vijay Agnew (2009). Racialized Migrant Women in Canada: Essays on Health, Violence and Equity. University of Toronto Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-8020-9904-4.
  • • most but not all of those book references do indeed make mention of the term as a way to describe Canadians of English and French descent, descended from those original settler groups. (The Vijay Agnew book, for one, does not, it refers only to "old stock" French, i.e. Pure laine). At the very least, it's an argument for redirecting somewhere else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]