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. Deferring any salting to WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Cruz[edit]

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

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

The article does not meet BIO or PORNBIO; the award listed is not significant and well known. The article is sourced to interviews, award listings or self-cited to the subject's web site. No meaningful bio content provided; no significant RS coverage can be found.

The article was kept at an AfD in 2012; PORNBIO has been tightened since then, and I believe this article is worth revisiting. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and no significant RS coverage, as noted. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The awards that do exist are part of a PR network and do not garner even the minimal attention that would be needed for them to be worth considering as grounds for inclusion of an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only thing approaching independent reliable sourcing is a wedding announcement. If that's enough to make you notable, I get to write articles about just about everyone in my high school graduating class, as well as most of our teachers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails PORNBIO -- simply not enough body of work. Quis separabit? 00:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, since this is the 3rd nomination, maybe some SALT on those fries? Quis separabit? 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Salt is a good idea given that this is the third nom. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's nothing there to show notability. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found a passing mention here, but otherwise I guess not even close to passing GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:36, 15 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 15:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keiran Lee[edit]

Keiran Lee (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 ANYBIO and PORNBIO; UK Adult Film and Television Award has been deemed insufficient in meeting the SNG, while the other award is fan based. Sources are not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 11:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this performer meet PORNBIO? The consensus in the current wave for AfD debates holds that a UKAFTA win doesn't satisfy the guideline. Neither does a fan award. Failing that requirement, we are left with a Playboy interview and porn trade press. The most charitable assessment is borderline. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• AVN Award – Favorite Male Performer - meets of PORNBIO, AVN Award this is most notable award of pornography; UK Adult Film and Television Award – Best Male Actor - there no clear consensus for meets/or nor meet PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 20:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all categories of AVN Award satisfy the "well-known" standard of PORNBIO. That's the working consensus of recent AfD debates. Winning niche award categories does not establish notability by itself. A claim that a fan award does is dubious. The judgement that supports a PORNBIO pass should be credible. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, all individual awards of AVN Award are notable and meets of the PORNBIO. There no any consensus for your theory. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Karla Lane, and AVN niche award winner, was deleted at Deletion review. Angelina Valentine, a XRCO niche award winner, was deleted at AfD. Do I have to go back and get more examples? • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your examples are discussions about delete few articles, again: discussions about delete some article. There are not official discussion and official consensus for rules, Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay, notability of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG, Awards don't meet our requirements and there's no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  fails GNG? See below. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with award wins and passes WP:GNG with mainstream media coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - above troll-"vote" by User:Johnpacklambert break WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:UNENCYC, especially, WP:JNN.... and abuse copy/paste. This user always use the same text "Non-notable pornographic actress". Blind votes, again. By the way, Keiran Lee are men (actor), not woman (actress). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 00:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe he passes the WP:GNG per Rebecca1990. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the above source are unconvincing, and largely consist of interview and opinions by the subject, rather than WP:SIGCOV. For example, the headlines are:

• 4 Porn Stars Talk About How They Fell in Love
• Talented or tainted: Can a porn star go mainstream? (Lee gets a passing mention among other adult entertainment personalities): "[Lee] said: "The good thing about the adult industry is it opens a lot of doors for going into mainstream. It's not as taboo as it used to be."
• Condom law 'will be ignored' says British porn actor (opinions by the subject)
• "...Lee, who is the only man in the world with a penis insured for one million dollars (according to his Twitter)..." (claims by the subject, followed by an interview)
• Keiran Lee: he's Britain's top porn star but gets his kicks out of Derby County (another interview)
• Who is the Simon Cowell of the porn industry? New Sex Factor show laid bare (promo article as expected at the launch of a new show, that ran in a tabloid)

I don't see how this amounts to meeting GNG as what I see is not "significant RS coverage" addressing the topic of Kieran Lee directly and detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have too high expectations, please stop your extreme delectionism deletionism. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's "delectionism", Does it mean someone who goes out of their way to deselect everything like these Checkboxes ?, –Davey2010^Talk 11:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletionism / deletionist, it mean someone who cause damage in Wikipedia, who wants to destroys the work of other users. For example: article Keiran Lee show pornographic actor, In 2012, Brazzers placed a billboard advertisement with a photo of him on Sunset Boulevard.[7] He has hosted the reality-show The Sex Factor. No. of adult films: 1036! as a performer & 1 as a director. Keiran Lee won two awards: 2007 UK Adult Film and Television Award – Best Male Actor[11] and 2016 AVN Award – Favorite Male Performer + some nominations. There are non-pornographic sources, meets of WP:GNG. But, no - few users-extreme deletionists must remove this. This destructive action, extreme deletionism is cancer who eats Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind you've missed the joke entirely. –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anyone with an inkling of knowledge about the deletionism enthusiast fanbase on Wikipedia knows that the criteria for porn-related articles for some reason need to be higher than those for sport-related articles, fashion-related articles and pretty much any other niche on Wikipedia. Why? Who knows. So I'm going to pretend that Keiran Lee is a male badminton player, in which case (per the sufficient amount of sources) he would be notable as per GNG. Pwolit iets (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about "high expectations" -- Wikipedia operates to an academic standard; it's an encyclopedia after all. It's not a WP:Indiscriminate collection of information. In addition, the RS requirement is more stringent for notability vs simply for content. Mr Lee clearly does not meet the required threshold of being a subject of WP:SIGCOV, as required by the notability guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no way this satisfies GNG. Neither does it satisfy the lower expectations of PORNBIO. As for the rants about "Deletionism", did you ever realise that the runaway "Inclusionism" of yesteryears is responsible for what Wikipedia has become? A place for promotional article about non-notable topics? All of this reduces the long term credibility of the encyclopaedia turning us into just another internet site where anyone can add information and people use it as a medium for promotion. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be accurate and NPOV, which is why we require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (See WP:WHYN). That clearly isn't happening here. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of all human garbage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails PORNBIO -- simply not enough body of work. Quis separabit? 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable, nominated as best footballer in 2015, 2012 and 2011 and player of the year in 2014 as well as a nomination for Best striker in 2013...you don't need to win to be notable, just ask Ted Cruz...article needs work but the player is very notable...--Stemoc 17:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stemoc: This article is about an actor, not a footballer. I'm not sure what is meant by such piping as "nomination for [[XRCO Award|Best striker]] in 2013" --? In any case, nominations do not count under PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable for nomination at AVNA – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's plenty of coverage showing notability for the "Simon Cowell of the porn industry". — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:30, 15 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 delete and redirect to Northern Mariana Islands national football team. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Westphal[edit]

Daniel Westphal (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 - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [7]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Northern Mariana Islands national football team, as fails WP:NFOOTY but plausible search term I guess. Joseph2302 08:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hack (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the international matches he played were not Tier 1, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 14:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - his country is not in FIFA, he is probably not professional. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:34, 15 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 delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who never married[edit]

List of people who never married (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 list will be infinite, and has similar problem to List of childless people. An IP address, likely belonging to the article creator objected to my PROD tag and hence I am opening an AfD discussion. Cahk (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to be making an effort to reduce the scope of the list so that it will be maintainable. See lead section and talk page.--172.56.33.203 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Way too broad a criterion, especially with the percentage rising (see Time article "Why 25% of Millennials Will Never Get Married", or The Japan Times article "Nearly 40% of single Japanese not interested in romance: survey"). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to just cut the list off at some date of birth if it becomes unmaintainable several decades from now. Maybe we could wait and see if that really happens. Notable heterosexual people tend to be people of talent and ambition and such people tend to get married. Maybe the Millennials that those predictions are based upon do not fall into that category and thus there will be fewer of them that meet the project's notability criteria at that future time. Maybe those young Millennials say now that they will not get married but maybe they will later change their minds (e.g. George Clooney or others documented in the External links section of the article) and the predictions will turn out to be wrong. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia. Consider my prediction of the process: most of the people who get on the list will get on it because they died.--208.54.64.203 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too broad per WP:SALAT, which explains that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To make things worse than people have pointed out above does someone like Eliza R. Snow who never married in a legal sense, but married according to religious rights, and fully proclaimed herself as the wife of Joseph Smith belong here or not? It will also group those like Evan Stephens who had a fiancee die on them, with those who never were even that close to marry. It also will include those who died before the age of 18 when they did not marry. Even the inclusion of those who died before age 30 without having married in many cases involves grouping unlike individuals. Come to think of it another questionable individual is John Gibson (soldier). His marriage to a close reliative of Chief Logan was clearly viewed as such by the Mingo, but does not appear to have existed as a legal marriage in the eyes of the colonial government. In fat, this is a harder to define set of people than those who died childless, although there are many males throughout history who it is disputed if they ever fathered a child or not, so that list had flaws as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And from the other side we have Molly Brant, a person who had 8 child, but was never technically married to their father, although our article says she was his "consort". In some historical slave societies, at least in the American south, slaves were refused the legal right to marry, but this does not mean that some were not functionally married. Then there are people like Calamity Jane who it is claimed was married to Wild Bill Hickock in a marriage properly witnessed by two ministers, but others dispute the event ever occured. So the inclusion criteria are fuzzy, and it is hard to establish that this is a way to group people, especially when many of the people who end up on the list will do so because they died before the average age of such a thing. Another issue is that we probably should not try and determine the marital status of all BLPs we have, although this might more be evidence that we have created articles on people who are not notable enough to justify having articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have read up on WP:SALAT and don't see that this list meets the guideline. The other problem with it, which is even more serious, is that there would be too many items that might be included or not, depending on how "married" is defined. That it's pointless information is perhaps not a very strong objection, because it might be seen as relevant to some people, but the fuzziness of the inclusion criteria can't be ignored. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete undefinable and too broad. Do common-law marriages exclude an entry?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be moved to "List of people who never had a spouce" since that is the word used in the infoboxes. Note that the lead section of the article excludes people younger than the age of marriage. Some of the infooxes mention "pattners". I created and have used the imperfect redirect never married. See also criticism of marriage#Some people who never married.--~~`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyree999 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of reasons for never having a spouse.--208.54.32.211 (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a number of reasons: topic is far too broad, no indication of why such a list would be encyclopedic material (ie no source that I know of has covered this) and a topic which by its very nature is going to result in a mostly unverifiable article. Heck, I almost closed this Speedy delete under A11, but I felt it might be useful to establish precedent for this type of thing, so that similar articles can be quickly dealt with. Vanamonde (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot think what purpose this page serves. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobody needs a list that links Joan of Arc to Harper Lee, or Susan B. Anthony to Al Pacino, solely on the basis of their never having married someone else — and even if we did constrain it to dead people exclusively, it still wouldn't be useful or valuable to try to maintain. It's not a defining characteristic, or a substantive point of commonality between its entries. For example, never having married before his death is not an inherently noteworthy fact about José Fernandez — people are not expected in 2016 to marry so young that being unmarried at age 24 would be unusual at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 11 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Stravino[edit]

Vince Stravino (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 - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [8]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep North marina islands may not be a member of FIFA but they are a member of the AFC, in a similar way to the gibraltar team. Also, he passes WP:GNG for acceptable coverage of being the oldest international outfield player in recent times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gibraltar are part of FIFA, they are not similar at all. NMI are ineligible to qualify for the World Cup.Simione001 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Apologies, I was unaware they were admitted a few months back, but prior to this their situation was similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes and all the player article have only been created since there admission. Please consider chamging your vote. Simione001 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at worst Redirect - If not independently notable, clearly a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the international matches he played were not Tier 1, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 14:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom; no FIFA-recognised games played Spiderone 16:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - his country is not in FIFA, he is most likely not professional. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:37, 15 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 speedy delete. Clear consensus to delete, sole significant contributor requests deletion Fenix down (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stafford[edit]

Daniel Stafford (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 - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [9]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the international matches he played were not Tier 1, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 14:08, 10 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Roberts (Northern Mariana Island footballer)[edit]

Dale Roberts (Northern Mariana Island footballer) (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 - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [10]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the international matches he played were not Tier 1, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. No evidence that subjects meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 14:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Has played for the national team, thus fulfilling WP:NFOOTY. Has an interesting backstory as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played in a FIFA-recognised match; the 'interesting backstory' argument is not related to any policy so I can't see any reason for keeping this article Spiderone 16:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - his country is not in FIFA, he is probably not professional. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:38, 15 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 delete. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyce Mister[edit]

Tyce Mister (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 - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [11]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the international matches he played were not Tier 1, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 14:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - his country is not in FIFA, he is probably not professional. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:39, 15 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Infinity[edit]

Green Infinity (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 with no sources to show notability. Searching doesn't turn anything up. Delete per WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, I've got a very strong feeling the whole thing is a hoax, anyway. A guitar with "a contemporary vow for urban sustainability and environmental awareness within one singular energy field"? Please... Yintan  23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An unreferenced article on what may be no more than a single item. (Could even be literally WP:MADEUP.) Searches are identifying nothing beyond mirror sites. Fails WP:NPRODUCT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. I can't even begin to explain what a waste of bytes this is. How in Gad's name is this notable? Bearian (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:40, 15 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 Procedural close. Page moved to draft space by Spinningspark (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives International[edit]

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

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

This stub has no sources other than itself, the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 8 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 delete. The sole keep argument carries no weight without sources. A Train^talk 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk of the Hills[edit]

Kirk of the Hills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This looks like a rather typical local church. I had to check that it was not associated with the influential Kenneth E. Hagin, whose church and college, surprisingly, are not in the category for Tulsa churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a poor quality article, but on a very notable church. The organization is notable both for its large size, and for its very public change in denominations. This kicked off a prolonged legal battle that set a precedent for many other churches. T-rex 13:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @T-rex: - thanks for your comment. I see you created the article ten years ago. If it's notable, are there some citations you can add? Blythwood (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article as it stands is just advertising, which could be improved. However, I can't find any substantial coverage apart from a small amount of local news about child abuse and theological disputes at the church. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:09, 15 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Church[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The current article seems to describe a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:17, 15 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aisa Kyon Hota Hai?[edit]

Aisa Kyon Hota Hai? (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)

Ek Jhalak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Mem Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Meena Bazaar (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Nargis (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Parivartan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Apsara (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

National Hero Shivaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

No evidence of notability for any of these films. All of these articles were created by Chandasmani, who was blocked as a sock puppet of Sulthan ameer. One of these, Faulad, had an earlier AfD that was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment all of these could be upgraded to start class with rs reviews but it would take a lot of work as they are not notable in their current state except for Faulad which MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) improved and I would favour keeping, but the reality is that they all excluding Faulad qualify for speedy deletion G5 as they were created by a blocked sockpuppet and they have not had significant edits from other editors except Faulad which has, unless others disagree Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep moving to keep and improve all, as they all seem to have had a national release there should be offline sources, also there is nothing even slightly contentious or blp like so there is not an immediate demand for references, but there is still the sockpuppet problem. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:V. It's unclear who would improve these articles which are now mostly uncited. IF these films are indeed notable someone (not a sock) would come along and create articles on them. WP:PROMO also applies; clearly created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and improve with the multiple available sources. To simply wonder who or when they will be corrected is a somewhat WP:IMPATIENT way to not build an encyclopedia, and I can only suggest that complaining is not a solution. For instance, I found it quite easy to take the nominated Aisa Kyon Hota Hai? and expand and source it. Sheesh. Stubs do not have to remain stubs. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:52, 16 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Dive N Ski[edit]

Surf Dive N Ski (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 policy Notability (organizations and companies):

 A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

The Sydney Morning Herald source in the article has little Notability value per WP:ORGDEPTH, announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. I did a rather extensive check of general Google search results and Google News search results and more. I found no additional sources making more than a passing mention of Surf Dive N Ski.

A prod on the article was contested as "article shouldn't be deleted as stores are everywhere".[12] Aside from being a rather subjective view, a "retailer operating over 85 stores" does not automatically entitle a company to an article here. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a business directory. Alsee (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of sources other than locations around Australia - primary sources, not enough to pass WP:NCORP Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'd give this a weak keep. The article could certainly require expansion and deeper resources, but being a relatively large retail store, I think it meets notability. If deletion is determined, might I suggest moving some of the content into parent company Billabong. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - requires some more work but keep – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no evidence that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Some of the few references in reliable sources are about the former owners (with the store getting a single word mention). The best I found was this routine merger announcement which cannot help to pass CORPDEPTH. Accordingly delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a misread of WP:CORPDEPTH here. The exact line is "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". A previous user above discussing the WP:CORPDEPTH left off the very important qualifier "brief". A review of the SMH article shows it is not brief, rather it is actually a bit extensive in discussing the topic. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable retail chain; nothing in the article or offered at this AfD rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 20 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 delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton-March Aircrew Association, Inc.[edit]

Norton-March Aircrew Association, Inc. (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 NORG and GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Zero results for sources found. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability beyond possible local interest not shown and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 13 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delphix[edit]

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

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

Clear and blatant advertisement whose article was also deleted in 2012 where it showed there was nothing to suggest an actual substance and believable article, and that's what we have here once again since none of this actually established both independent coverage and non-PR influences, all of the Forbes focus with PR and unconvincing "business specifics" aside from one who is then actually by a "special business contributor" (clearly PR-influenced), and the others are also then simply advertising or repeating what the company's own advertisements are. My own searches are then simply finding advertising and republished advertising so that's certainly not hopeful. Other things I'll note is (1) the advertising-only account was then linked to another troublesome user, who also involved himself with other advertisements (now deleted) and (2) other new accounts noticeably came and only focused with this one article, so that certainly shows this article is nowhere near being salvageable. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Google News is providing a great deal of coverage about this company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing mainly press releases and reprinted press releases - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands per nom. "Keep" opiners seem unable to answer the question: "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I do not see any keep !votes in this AFD yet, just commentary on the legit news reporting in reliable sources with significant coverage. No one is answering your biased and leading question because the sources already refute your vote. You have provided no evidence of your accusation of non-professionalism of the journalists in question, while another user has provided a good starter list of sources with a description of their methodology in choosing those sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some bylined articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten press release, article actually about their PR person, blog (WSJ blog are notorious for advertorial placement), rewritten press release, the Reg source may indicate wider notability but it's entirely company-supplied information. Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach? - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some substantial accusations you've made. Do you have an specific evidence to refute that senior writer Serdar Yegulalp[13] from InfoWorld, technology reporter Rachael King[14] from the Wall Street Journal, executive editor for technical content Curtis Franklin Jr.[15] from InformationWeek, and Chris Mellor[16] from The Register have all supplied significant coverage and commentary on the article topic in reliable sources? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is notably not at any point an answer to the question "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued accusations against the professionalism of the bylined writers noted above would have some more weight if you actually had any evidence beyond your personal opinion of their performance. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is notably not at any point an answer to the question "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" You're just throwing up chaff now - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AFD closer will be able to clearly see the weakness of your case and your continued wilful accusations against the professionalism of the journalists in question. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; the articles exists solely to promote the business. With language such as "[Company] increases efficiency" blah blah, this was most likely created by paid editors, which is against policy. The rest of the material is not much better. "Delphix hires anti-PR bloke Silicon Valley Watcher as head of PR" (from the lowest of the low sources The Register) is very telling. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles, as they not only do not provide any value to readers, they are also a time sink both at AfD and trying to maintain their neutrality (see WP:BOGOF). Salt while we are at it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of note is that the article has been created by a sock puppet Special:Contributions/Yanis_ahmed (blocked). K.e.coffman (talk) 13:47, 14 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 delete. WP:SALTing can be asked for at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka[edit]

Hitomi Tanaka (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. Negligible independent reliable sourcing if any. Deleted in September 2015, recreated with just enough unsourced/trivial additional information do escape speedy deletion as a repost, but still has no legitimate assertion of notability or reliably sourced nontrivial biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete again. The only new fact since the previous deletion is winning a fan award. References are neither substantial nor reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam: no meaningful bio data provided; insufficient RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT per above comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 04:55, 12 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 delete. MER-C 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobovivo[edit]

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

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

Not only deleted in 2006 which is a sign in and of itself, this current article is also simply an advertisement and it seems therefore a PR advertising campaign considering an article was also started for its businessman, my own searches are not finding anything but trivial and unconvincing PR and mentions (including at local news media, some of which literally found nothing at all), none of which can be taken seriously and heavily. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom I'm finding only press releases, reprinted press releases and passing mentions - no organic news coverage about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as corporate spam; Wikipedia is not WP:WEBHOST to duplicate a company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 16 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 delete. despite the limited discussion, since the opinions are quite in line with WP policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia[edit]

List of deputy mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Deputy mayors of cities are not a topic we normally keep lists of, as it's not an inherently notable position — this is literally the only list of deputy mayors that actually exists on Wikipedia for any city in the entire world (even in the very few cities where we do have an article about the position, there still isn't a standalone list and usually there isn't even an embedded one — and even then "Deputy Mayor of (City)", if it exists on Wikipedia at all, is usually just a redirect to an article on the whole city council rather than a standalone topic.) City councils choose their deputy mayors by any number of different methods (internal vote of the council members, periodic rotation so that everybody on council gets a turn, direct accession of whichever councillor got the highest vote total in the ward elections, nepotistic appointment of the mayor's political allies, etc.), but in almost no city is it ever directly elected by the general public. Which means that a list of them is not normally a maintanable article — and if we can't generally keep lists of most cities' deputy mayors, we can't make a standalone exception just for Halifax alone. (In addition, on at least a couple of occasions people have wrongly construed the existence of this list as conferring an automatic WP:NPOL pass on the holders of the title...which it doesn't.) And, for that matter, even if it were to be kept it would still have to be moved to List of deputy mayors of Halifax, Nova Scotia anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- all non notable individual and the topic area is quite esoteric -- deputy mayors? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 13 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataStax[edit]

DataStax (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)

Ridiculously kept at the 1st AfD since it had a pathetic amount of attention and even then the links listed there were trivial and unconvincing, but unfortunately no one cared to state and acknowledge this; this article contains not only what the company would solely say, but also trivial and unconvincing information and sources, even the best major news sources listed here are simply about PR information such as their own business activities and then having interviewed information; none of that is substantial and my own searches are mirroring this. In the past, there have been noticeable accounts with only heavily focusing with this one article, by either actually then adding advertising or copy-and-paste copyvio, and it's been happening for 2 years (of course, including when the article was started). SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  A Google search on [ridiculously] defines it as: "so as to invite mockery or derision; absurdly."  Merriam-webster.com defines it as:

arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous
"ridicule" is defined with the "simple" definition as: "to laugh at and make jokes about (someone or something) in a cruel or harsh way : to make fun of (someone or something)"

Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  A Google search on [pathetic] defines it as:

1. arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.

2. relating to the emotions.

Merriam-webster.com defines it as:

1 : having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity

2 : marked by sorrow or melancholy : sad

3 : pitifully inferior or inadequate <the restaurant's pathetic service>

4 : absurd, laughable <a pathetic costume>

Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  References in the article on 2013-02-10T14:02:28:

• wiki.apache.org/cassandra/Committers
• www.infoworld.com/t/database-administration/cassandra-12-database-better-geared-fat-servers-210072
• www.informationweek.com/hardware/virtualization/riptano-offers-cassandra-commercial-supp/224600336
• www.networkworld.com/community/blog/datastax-wants-make-cassandra-best-nosql-them
• www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2012/10/03/datastax-wants-a-pound-of-flesh-from-oracle/
• www.dbms2.com/2012/03/21/datastax-enterprise-2-0
• www.techweb.com/news/240144124/13-big-data-vendors-to-watch-in-2013.html
• jaxenter.com/could-cassandra-be-the-first-breakout-nosql-database-44849.html
• online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130115-909630.html?mod=crnews
• blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2012/05/30/a-different-perspective-on-nosql-vendor-traction/
• www.eweek.com/database/apache-cassandra-based-datastax-community-edition-1.2-launches/
• www.zdnet.com/datastax-1-2-on-windows-a-guided-tour_p9-7000010053/
• www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/cassandra_mashed_with_hadoop/
• www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/datastax_enterprise_cassandra_2_0/
• www.drdobbs.com/open-source/datastax-manages-big-data-trio-real-time/232700037

Additional references mentioned in the AfD:

• www.heraldonline.com/2013/01/15/4545144/research-and-markets-global-nosql.html
• techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.html
• lsvp.com/company/datastax/
• www.meritechcapital.com/investments
• jaxenter.com/could-cassandra-be-the-first-breakout-nosql-database-44849.html
• www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2012/10/03/datastax-wants-a-pound-of-flesh-from-oracle/

Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have rewritten the article to remove promotional language, to achieve a more neutral tone, and to add back in reliable sources that had been deleted from earlier version. The article had gone downhill since it was last kept in the 2013 AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still nothing swinging notability - sources are publicity, passing mentions or about Cassandra, and the same in what GNews gives me - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After the rewrite, the article is based on multiple reliable sources including articles Dr. Dobbs, InfoWorld, InformationWeek, eWeek, ZDnet, and NetworkWorld and content from a book from a reliable publisher. Most of these sources are in-depth. These multiple reliable sources establish notability per WP:GNG. Promotional and any copy vio problems were eliminated by the rewrite. A notable topic and and a modest start class article with WP:POTENTIAL for improvement all suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete As per nom. Adn analysing the sources or references. This article is list of highest degree of ridicule Wikipedia can have. Light2021 (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  This article is part of our coverage of NoSQL databases, which are used in the largest of databases.  Although still technically a startup, this particular company has products in one-third of the Fortune 100.  According to fortune.com, (Clancy, Heather [14 April 2015]. "DataStax just scored a big partnership with HP. Here's why."), for the September 2014 round of venture financing, the company was valued at $830 million.  Part of the impetus for this company comes from the fact that the technology was developed at Facebook before it was released as OpenSource in 2008.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. etc. Also keep per WP:HEY, per Mark viking's work on the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While several references such as Fortune magazine, Network world, Techcrunch and Information Week have been provided as a reason to Keep, those articles are really just promotional marketing pieces full of company-provided quotations and should not be considered as "independent". But the ZDNet article is good and the Russell Bradberry book reference is good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 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 no consensus. Many various opinions here, but no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Benn[edit]

Conor Benn (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 boxer who does not even come close to meeting WP:NBOX only claim to fame being the son of a more well-known boxer which is not relevant. This was a contested PROD with the contention that WP:GNG was met but I am pretty sure that is not the case. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. A quick Google search found coverage such as these: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. --Michig (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meets WP:GNG as mentioned above. More than one of the above sources mentions he has a major endorsement deal with Reebok and is also a brand ambassador for them. Naue7 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He clearly doesn't meet WP:NBOX with a total of 4 minor pro fights. All of the coverage seems focused on the fact that his father was a notable boxer. His dad seems to be mentioned in either the headline or first sentence of the given sources. It's clear that if his father wasn't Nigel Benn, Conor wouldn't have an article (or likely a Reebok contract). I would suggest that, at least until he achieves some notable success as a boxer, a redirect might be more appropriate. Papaursa (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage tends to mention his father for obvious reasons, but it clearly is not the focus of all the coverage. If he wasn't any good he wouldn't be getting all this coverage - there's so much because he's seen as a potential future champion. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If his father wasn't a champion, 4 fights against fighters who all have losing records wouldn't generate any buzz. Calling someone at this stage of his career "a potential future champion" seems like extreme WP:CRYSTALBALL and is a claim that could be made about virtually any young fighter. Seems like WP:NOTINHERITED also comes into play. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Just look at the lack of coverage for Chris Eubank's 'other son' (Nathaniel Wilson), who is at a similar stage in his career and whom people are not getting too excited about yet. Benn is getting onto top cards because there's so much interest in him. WP:CRYSTALBALL covers predictions of future events, not seeing talent in someone who could become successful. WP:NOTINHERITED might have applied if someone was arguing that Benn should have an article simply because of who his father is but nobody is arguing that - he has received coverage for his boxing career so is independently notable. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as what stands and is stated here is that he is not applicable for the notability especially considering his career achievements so far, none of them have been for a notable and major event or happening; therefore even with sources, this would certainly still be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SwisterTwister. —Mythdon 11:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not independently notable of Reebok or Nigel Benn. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. Otherwise, no indications of significance or WP:SIGCOV as his own person to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Nigel Benn as a separate section within that article. He is the subject of significant secondary coverage but it exists only because of his family, and it would be logical to maintain this reliably sourced info in the article that gives it the appropriate context. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Professional fighter of promise at the start of his career. Cannot help get the feeling that deletion now will lead to future reinstatement and that this AFD is a little premature. 82.41.126.253 (talk) 16:40, 19 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alaipayuthey tamil serial[edit]

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

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

An article about a Tamil language movie series. Whereas plenty of sources, including the website of the series, exist, and there is no doubt that this is not a hoax, I was not able to find a single reliable source describing the series, and, thus, that it passes WP:N. Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, very short. Agree that it doesn't pass WP:N. South Nashua (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- article in current state is nothing more than a crufty promo. Quis separabit? 15:07, 9 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avenged Sevenfold's untitled seventh studio album[edit]

Avenged Sevenfold's untitled seventh studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Much WP:TOOSOON. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. TheKaphox T 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no title, there can't be an article title! That is a no-brainer to me. Once it gets a title, it can be a redirect until it meets notability requirements. Kellymoat (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom surely there's a CSD for this sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Redirect this page and "Voltaic Oceans" to Avenged Sevenfold per WP:CHEAP, [35] and [36]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it has now been named, I still say delete. It is two months before it will be released. We do not know if it is will be notable or not. Too soon.Kellymoat (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Because Voltaic Oceans is mentioned in the two articles that I listed above, it is likely to be a valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, if it ends up not being the title, the content of the correct article could say "originally planned to be titled". That way it shows up in a search.

Either way, there is no guarantee of notability for either (the album or the search term).

Kellymoat (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's likely the album will be entirely article-worthy ... once there's a firm title and release date. But until then, (1) WP:CRYSTAL (2) this is actually unacceptable as a title - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is likely meet current wp standards for an article in the future. But not because it has a title and release date. Wikipedia isn't a running history of all things ever. It is an online encyclopedia, not every artist/album/song is important enough - and certainly not before their release.Kellymoat (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HAMMER, which almost has the status of CSD. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Neither the title of the album nor the release date have been reported or confirmed by the band or any record label with which they may be associated, this article is - so far - unfounded. Athies22 (talk) 04:04, 14 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20s a Difficult Age[edit]

20s a Difficult Age (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:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TOOSOON. TheKaphox T 17:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Soundcloud isn't a source. The article currently lacks information and sources. Kellymoat (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I've also PRODed the artist's article, both that and this were created by the same SPA - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Orelias - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also PRODed the artist's other album that has an article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel of the Underground TheKaphox T 20:37, 13 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Sweet[edit]

Monica Sweet (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards or nonpromotional nominations. No reliably sourced biographical content. No independent sourcing The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real claim of passing the current PORNBIO guideline. No reliable source coverage. Claims of passing an earlier version of PORNBIO as a Hustler Honey did not save the article in 2007 and the guideline has been significantly tightened since then. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a BLP with no reliable sources listed; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable with no RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I made a good faith search for any sort of coverage in reliable sources and discovered nothing. Accordingly, I concur with the nominator's analysis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable pronographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 9 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden body painting dance show[edit]

Golden body painting dance show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Based on the two sources, this appears to be a form of butoh that has existed since 1959 at least. Creator insists it is distinct from butoh. In any case, there is not enough here for an article; this document as it exists is mostly an unsourced, sort-of-Japanese-to-English-dictionary; not a WP article about a form of dance or street entertainment. Fails GNG, fails to provide much encyclopedic context at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance -related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is separated from butoh dance because it's a body painting dance show used in special events in Japan. Sarrena (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any evidence that this is a distinct dance form, and more importantly, that it is a notable dance form. It seems like some performers used golden paint in a butoh performance. That doesn't mean it is a different dance form. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 11 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 delete. Based on the discussion here, there are no reliable or secondary sources that could be used to argue notability. I'll also salt this title, alternative titles should be reported to WP:RFPP for salting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onnit[edit]

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

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

See my extensive PROD, Delete and Salt please as this has been deleted 3 times now. SwisterTwister talk 15:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both your link and the statement that this has been deleted three times seem to be about another article. Please slow down and take a bit more care about what you are doing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, I witnessed the other deletion and it was for this same exact company, which is worse the fact someone clearly unknowingly accepted from AfC. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Swister meant to link to [37] which is where their PROD for this article appeared. However, I only see evidence that this article has been deleted once before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I knowingly accepted this article. I thought (and still think) that this company meets notability criteria. It has multiple reliable sources. I accepted it after I did Google search and found more sources. I think it will survive AFD. Fuortu (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, didn't it occur to you that it might be a good idea to click on your link as it was before you fixed it, and on the "logs" link above, before accusing me of lying? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I recommended this AfD twice before in 2016, and it was once deleted. I hope SwisterTwister's statement that the article be finally "salted" means it does not come back again. The company is not notable, reliable secondary sources are not used, and the content some editors wish to add is clearly promotional per WP:POVEDITOR. The article has the air of using WP for advertising to give a supplement company credibility and differentiation in a competitive market. --Zefr (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt in all plausible name variations. The closest to an RS here is the Rolling Stone Australia article (a few paragraphs interviewing the company founder in an article on nootropics in general), and that's not enough to swing a keep. GNews shows me little or nothing in the way of RSes actually about the company, and in fact mostly press releases for the mulitple other companies of this name - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I actually accepted this version of the article. Then, User:Zefr came and removed almost 60% of the content along with some reliable sources. If you haven't read talk page already, there is RFC discussion going on to restore some content. Fuortu (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  bizjournals is sponsored content, not RS. Such content should be removed; this is called "the improvement process at Wikipedia" - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What about other sources? Fuortu (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You claimed he removed RSes, I noted that the sources removed were bizjournals which is not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  He removed one bizjournal and 3 other sources. 1 2 3 Fuortu (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources on nootropics are WP:PRIMARY, thoroughly conjectural and not applicable to actual effects per WP:MEDRS. The Austin Fit article is conspicuously a promotional blog, not WP:RS. --Zefr (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First source is 'Research article' reporting on original research which makes it a secondary source. Can you please explain why second source is primary source? I don't think it is a primary source. Austin Fit magazine is a reliable source. It talks about the success of this company. Fuortu (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This strongly suggests you don't understand the term "primary source", because that's what it is - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think first source is primarily source? It is clearly a research article Fuortu (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a research article, but also a primary source as it is a report of the results of a trial by the people who conducted that trial. A secondary source would be a review article by someone else that interpreted the results of various trials. Please read WP:MEDRS, which has already been liked linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got it confused with review article, I guess. Fuortu (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical claims that were in a previous version of the article, and no non-PR sources for the non-medical things that this company does. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is covered in reliable sources: Forbes, KXAN, Wrestling Inc., MMA Mania, Austin Culture Ramp. Though the page needs some work, the company is notable. There is nothing promotional with how the page currently reads. Meatsgains (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these sources are bad - Forbes is a contributed blog, KXAN literally says "Sponsored by Onnit Academy", Wrestling Inc. is not an RS and mentions Onnit only in passing, MMA Mania is not an RS and only says the event's using Onnit, Austin Culture Map literally says "According to a press release" - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the company has recently gotten quite a bit of coverage for its partnership with Marvel. Meatsgains (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with the Delete comments, a Marvel partnership is not WP:N, not WP:NPOV but is clearly WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those search results constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; strictly promotional (minor awards / listings) & no substance. The sources offered offered at this AfD are unconvincing. Salt as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 16 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tallyfy[edit]

Tallyfy (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)

My extensive PROD removed by someone who is either involved with the company or an employee (especially considering the IP geolocates to the company's location), because they not only said WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but they then said both "there's sources" and then the claims that I must be a company competitor; I still confirm everything from my PROD because everything in fact is still PR, both sources and information. SwisterTwister talk 15:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I am a company rep and here's my case - which I consider valid. If you are going to delete this - are you also going to delete every other vendor in this category? Take a look at Kissflow for example - why does that exist? It follows that every other vendor with a few citations should be deleted too. It's unexplained that referencing an article with a range of citations is now called a REFBOMB - isn't that the point of Wikipedia and notability? I can provide a ton of other examples that merit deletion if this is the argument being made. Granted, as a company employee I may seem biased to you - but there's no argument to be made if the only reasoning here is that theres "too many references" - especially as multiple Wikipedia editors went through submission and cleanup. There is no justification for the vague notion of "corporate depth" either - because by that token - hundreds of pages of vendors in this and other categories would require deletion. - 12:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.210.78 (talk) . Update - a further comment - upon further reflection - these actions seems extreme and targeted at any person or page that seemingly looks like a small business. You need to make edits based on content not on making judgements about people from an armchair. All citations here are strong and reflect real notability. Please present a precise case why specific citations are not. I especially deplore the statement below about the "REFBOMB" - this is a ridiculous, sweeping statement to make without any detail or justification. Why don't we just call all Wikipedia article REFBOMBs? Is that fair?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete that's a great REFBOMB but I'm unconvinced any of it has WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikipedia facing these days in abundance! Delete as the "Keep" comment has made. Only promotions, The Blatant Kind. Light2021 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- Comment - Really? Why does a properly cited article suddenly become a "blatant kind" of promotion. Please name one citation that's out of place here. Instead of making a sweeping statement with no evidence - present a real case about why this article should not exist - while a range of others should. None of the "delete" statements here have noted anything specific except for a witchhunt with no evidence. Are you going to delete every company on Wikipedia? If not - why not?

• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 16 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Baby D.R.A.M.[edit]

Big Baby D.R.A.M. (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)

Put it to a vote - does a debut album that has not even been released meet notability requirements? Kellymoat (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but my vote is hardly unexpected since I am the one that nominated it. I am actually ok with a redirect to the artist (assuming the artist meets notability requirements). But I am simply not sure how a debut album could possibly meet notability requirements prior to it's release. Kellymoat (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your vote, however, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album has been confirmed and upcoming soon. Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was "confirmed". How does that make it notable? Kellymoat (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It includes a notable single. Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't nominate the single (which was released 6 months ago) for deletion or redirection. Notability is not inherited. Albums must meet their individual criteria. (sorry, I don't have the links to the rules) Kellymoat (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other album articles were created before it was released, examples are Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, Trapsoul and Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin'. Check their history for proof. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you said your piece, now sit back and let others vote. Because I am finished with it and won't respond to you again. Otherwise, it will just be me and you going back and forth on a subject that we will never agree on. Secondly, about other articles - using the "but everyone else is doing it" excuse is never a good defense. Kellymoat (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This shouldn't be a surprise since I created the page, but there is a lot of credible sources out there that allows this to be a notable article, and the album comes out in less than two weeks, so what is the point of removing something that is credible and coming soon? JayPe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreeing with JayPe. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON - doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS yet. David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It will be released in 10 days. D.R.A.M. is successful artist and the album gonna be released by a major label. Now try to nominate Starboy for deletion and see how people gonna react. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Eurofan88. Also, per WP:NALBUM, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". The title, track listing, and release date have all been confirmed; therefore the article can exist. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - let it snowball. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is sourced, and almost certain to chart next week due to "Broccoli" being in the top 10 of the Hot 100, and D.R.A.M. already being on the Billboard 200 with his EP. It was released today, as well. Ss112 23:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album is released and getting significant coverage and reviews from legitimate outlets. Joliv (talk) 04:04, 21 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Nigeria football rivalry[edit]

Algeria–Nigeria football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is one of a number of articles which seem to be about unremarkable 'rivalries' between Algeria & other nations. The fact that the other articles exist strengthens my case. The rivalry between Arsenal and Spurs is notable....it's been going on for ages. But (for instance) Arsenal and Man U are merely rivals in the sense that all other teams in a competitive sport are rivals. TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC) These are the others. There's also Algeria–Morocco football rivalry, currently a redlink but it's inclusion in the see also section of these articles suggests that it will be created. Given the geography, this actually seems the most credible candidate for notability.[reply]

• Algeria–Egypt football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Algeria–Tunisia football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete Algeria–Nigeria football rivalry. The article has no sources that describe this pair of teams as having a rivalry. The article creator may have been writing these articles without necessarily putting much care into all of them, given that all three of the leads mention that "football is Italy's national sport", although none of these articles are about the Italian football team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - other than being in the northern half of Africa, there is no indication of any real rivalry here. See WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 09:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - fails WP:NRIVALRY. Geographic proximity does not automatically produce a rivalry. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• So in all the world there football rivalry except africa. Hichem algerino 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure rivalries exists in African football, but they must meet WP:GNG to be included in Wikipedia. Right now there is little to suggest that these competitions meet GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - fails WP:NRIVALRY. Playing each other semi-regularly does not make a de facto rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 10 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 delete. MER-C 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Pacquiao Hearted Fist[edit]

Manny Pacquiao Hearted Fist (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 promotional article about a non-notable 'painting'. I changed it to a redirect to the perp,(who I believe is the creator of this thing, but got reverted. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and promotional. Not worth even a redirect. As per the nominator there is a clear COI for this article. The COI extends heavily into the article on the artist himself and also another painting article A Thousand and One Lives which should also be the subject of an AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kellymoat (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This art is not independently notable. No need for a redirect. Btw, this is one of the most blatant cases of COI I have ever seen. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Too late to add A Thousand and One Lives directly to this AfD so I created separate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Thousand and One Lives.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - bad art about celebrities are so common as to be cliched. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 13 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Archipelago[edit]

Rutland Archipelago (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 think an article with the same content already exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutland_Island UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Delete Rutland Island is a part of the Rutland Archipelago. @UNSC Luke 1021: In any case if it were a duplication of content the proper thing to do is tag it for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 not open an AfD discussion. Jbh^Talk 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Striking until there is proof of existance. - Last edited: 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Change to delete. No evidence of existance/usage of term as a geographic feature. Jbh^Talk 13:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But what evidence is there that Rutland Island is part of the Rutland Archipelago, or even that a Rutland Archipelago exists? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rutland Island definitely exists, not sure about the archipelago UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Speedy delete as a hoax. Other than Wikipedia articles, I find exactly one hit for "Rutland Archipelago". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a hoax then all of the contributions of HonorTheIsland need to be checked. They have created a lot of island articles in the last couple of days. I am surprised they have not shown up here.

The search function at GEONAMES is not working for me so I have not been able to confirm it there. Jbh^Talk 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea anyway to check all his/her articles and verify the details. A month ago there was a row on Trinket Village] with clearly incorrect info added. And I do not remember how many unreliable tables I have removed. Unreliable as showing uninhabited islands with a capital and other settlements. In this case: I can not find any reliable source for the existence of the archipelago. The Banner talk 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rutland Island (though vice versa would work too); neither has sufficient notability independent of the other to justify two separate pages here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it does exist that would not work because we have several articles on its constituent islands which would make it pass WP:GEOLAND - Named natural features. If it does not exist then it should be deleted. Jbh^Talk 14:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (after edit conflict) I must ask again, what evidence is there that Rutland Archipelago even exists? Why redirect from what looks like a made-up hoax name? And of course Rutland Island is notable as an inhabited island, but this discussion is about the supposed archipelago, not the island. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the article by M. V. Portman (1899), A history of our Relations with the Andamanese he claims that the Onge tribe expansion outside of litle andaman island was the islands to the north of it, which were not inhabited, he called them Rutland Archipealgo. when onge tribe reached south andaman island, then they met hostility by other great andamanese tribes. Portman claims that onge people only settled in little andaman group and Rutland Archipelago. HonorTheIsland (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Raj era books by the likes of Maurice Vidal Portman are discredited as reliable sources as being based on so-called scientific racism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no firm evidence has been provided that this even exists. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment, because an article that already basically covers the subject exists, and barely anything about the island mentioned here comes up. There is a Rutland Island in Ireland, which has a lot of information, but the only info on the Indian Rutland Island is this page and some Indian travel sites UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struck and changed your "Delete" to "Comment" because your nomination of the article is, by definition, a !vote to delete. The only time, as a nominator, you would use another bolded !vote would be if you later think there should be a non-delete outcome. In that you would put the your changed !vote directly below your nomination statement. If everyone has voted "Keep" and you no longer think it should be deleted you write "Withdrawn by nominator" and the AfD can be speedily closed. If their have already been non-Keep !votes a withdrawal of is basicly a "Keep". You can place any changed !vote ie "Redirect", "Userfy" etc. below your nomination statement but make sure to give a reason becuase it, just like your nomination statement, is weighed by the closer when closing. If, in an AfD you did not start, you want to change your !vote you strike the original like I did above and underline the changed !vote and the reason for the change or new opinion Then sign at the end of your edited comment with something like Changed !vote ~~~~. See WP:REDACT for general information on editing your own comments. Hope this helps. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did some diligent searching including the local government land maps and found no use of this term. It is indistinguishable from a hoax. - Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW, as failing verification in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 18 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chillhop[edit]

Chillhop (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 looked everywhere, but I haven't found one good source that even mentions this genre. Not notable in the least bit. editorEهեইдအ😎 01:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete on balance - it seems to be a tag people are using (as "chillhop" or "chill-hop") and a term I see used in reviews, but I can't find anything (RS or unRS) either that talks about what it is. I'm willing to be convinced, but I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON for a genre - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 2 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 delete. MER-C 04:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero Group[edit]

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

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

Somehow and surprisingly removed (after it was PRODed) with the thin basis in that "there were news and that it was not an advertisement" but that's in fact what this is exactly; it's advertising what there to say about the company and its services and then having the sheerness to list such trivial PR awards, complete with the PR sources. Searches of course not finding anything but a few pieces of PR, nothing at local news media either, there's simply nothing at all actually suggesting this could ever be improved and accepted since the listed links themselves are simply PR links talking about the company itself or its activities (i.e "City gives company $2M for headquarters", "Cicero Group's new headquarters", "Cicero acquires company", etc."; I should then note the first immediate source....is the company's own website; that in itself is PR so the claims of this not being an advertisement are not relevant. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Sources are a flurry of fluff, no WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs an overhaul but a google news search seems to indicate coverage in multiple reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]