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. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends voice actors[edit]

List of League of Legends voice actors (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)

Though League of Legends is notable, there is no need for a list of voice actors. Aside from the notability issue, this article's premise violates Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE, which is why the several previous attempts at listing out the characters and their in-game roles have been deleted, as well. IMDb covers this game's cast-- there is no need to have that information transcribed as a directory. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• *Keep IMDb is an unreliable source so it should not be relied on to provide accurate information about this subject. League of Legends is so notable that participation through voice acting also would seem to be notable. Also, it is better to have this information in it's own article rather than merging and overenlarging other articles. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly not recommend having this kind of information merged into the League of Legends article-- I'm recommending this page is deleted, cut and dry. I'm not arguing that the game is not notable, as it's very much so, but having not only game guides, but cast lists for individual video games, is unprecedented. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read WP:NOTINHERITED? Just because league is notable, it does not make all the voice actors notable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid at deletion discussions rules out almost everything from an inclusion point of view and is a particularly biased essay while Not Inherited has been given a vast scope that was never intended from its original couple of sentances.Voice acting in a very notable production obviously gives more notability such as rs coverage than working in little known non notable productions.Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were discussing the merits of the essay, what about the fact that this page is a virtual recreation of a page that was previously deleted for not being notable and for being a game guide? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

League of Legends is so notable that participation through voice acting also would seem to be notable. This is a classic suggestion that because League is notable, all the voice actors are too. This goes against the WP:GNG and WP:NRVE - two of the most fundamental principles of article creation. For example, just because Barack Obama is notable, it does not mean his right arm is notable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another person agreeing that this stance seems to be centered entirely around INHERITED and not wanting to merge it into a parent article, neither being valid arguments in favor of proving stand-alone notability. As my stance below mentions too, your comments on the importance of voice acting in video games flies directly against WikiProject Video Game's current consensus, which, per WP:GAMECRUFT, generally discourages these sorts of lists existing at all, let alone as a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking keep vote as there is a consensus against this type of article Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find any WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The entire article is one giant violation of WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:NOT. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if this could be salvaged as a character list, there's no indication that the mass of characters in LoL are notable or could be documented in that way (contrast to Characters of Overwatch where we can support most characters with secondary sources.) --MASEM (t) 13:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is too detailed, trivial information. It's not about the characters, but about their voice actors. Unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, so there's no justification for lists of cast members. Also, it really needs to be emphasised (again) that notability is not inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airwheel E6[edit]

Airwheel E6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. No attempt to establish notability. Sourced entirely by PR releases. Cabayi (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article doesn't have a substantial amount of notable sources from the United States (the purported country of origin of the product). If they are there, they should be added by the creator for a second look. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Rides[edit]

Spare Rides (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 about an organization, which features almost no substance beyond "it exists" and is sourced to just two pieces of relatively WP:ROUTINE local coverage with no evidence of the wider coverage that it takes to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. Something like this would have to operate more than just locally, or at least be getting coverage beyond its own city, to qualify for a Wikipedia article about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the article fails to establish notability, while being promotional at the same time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power management keys[edit]

Power management keys (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: Power management keys are rare on modern keyboards and where they do exist, they are almost always multi-function keyboards with keys for other features that are usually programmable. Unless we have an article about multi-function programmable keys (similar to Multimedia keyboard), I see no need to have an article about power management keys which are just that - especially with all of this apparent "original research" in the way and Google searches returning no useful results (purely advertising or promotional links). We have our own solutions to manage the power of Wikipedia, after all, and don't need keys to do it. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Some Gadget Geek: Your deletion rationale isn't clear. Can you please re-state it in a policy-based way? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reeks of original research. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep April Fools' Day is over. (Is this a non-April Fools' AfD?) YudsWiki2003 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @YudsWiki2003: No this AFD is not for April Fools. However, this was nominated for deletion for April Fools Day (at WP:Articles for deletion/Power management keys/AFD) but this is a serious nomination. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (See comment below). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct airlines of Faroe Islands[edit]

List of defunct airlines of Faroe Islands (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 is a single-entry list. Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added two more airlines that were missing to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, MilborneOne. Following your additions I don't see any reason for deletion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Nickelodeon[edit]

History of Nickelodeon (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 "History" section on the main Nickelodeon article does not summarize any of the network's history beyond the early '80s, and the contents of the separate history page are much shorter than the "History" sections on comparable articles like CBS. Doesn't warrant its own page. OpenYourEyes2 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Main article is already overly long as it is, so merging this back in would make that article overly weighty. With 37 refs this is a WP:SOFIXIT case of improving the later parts from 'fanboy' tone, not outright deletion. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable network, this is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There was a recent discussion by editors of Nickelodeon about this issue, see: Talk:Nickelodeon#Merge history article into this one. Merge discussion should probably start there. Delete without merge is obviously not appropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Of course! This company is a major television network (once that I watched as a child). With hundreds of shows released, an article covering the company's history is useful. I don't think the fact that the Nickelodeon article currently covers the history from the 1980s onward is a good reason to delete it. On the contary, it should be expanded instead. One citation that might be used to expand the article is The History of Nickolodeon timeline, found at the following url: https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/the-history-of-nickelodeon. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The history section of the main article certainly does need work to better summarize this content, but folding it back into the already-pretty-long main article doesn't seem like the right move. There looks to be enough by way of sources and content to justify a stand-alone history article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above 'keep' comments, notable network, issue of main Nickelodeon article being fairly long. Merging them is an option but would make Nickelodeon nearly 100k bytes and add 5 more sections to the 10 (and 23 sub-sections of varying levels) already existing. If it isn't long enough already, that would be pushing it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Google_April_Fools'_Day_jokes#Google_Gnome. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Gnome[edit]

Google Gnome (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)

Proposing redirect to List of Google April Fools' Day jokes, not enough information to warrant its own article ActuallyTheFakeJTP ^{(talk • contribs)}_{(April Fools!)} 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconding the redirect proposal. Trivialist (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also in favor of the redirect proposal. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 21:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Google April Fools' Day jokes per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Google April Fools' Day jokes § Google Gnome, where this is covered at. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert Sapolsky. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst[edit]

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (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 subject is a not-yet-published book with insufficient evidence of notability. The article was created by a single-purpose account. It is too soon to consider creating an article in Wikipedia on this subject. Biogeographist (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Robert Sapolsky (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. After the book is published, if there are enough reviews or articles about the book, the redirect can be easily undone.

  Cunard (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that a redirect is an acceptable alternative. If it is redirected instead of deleted, the edit summary should link to this deletion discussion and note that the reason for the redirect is its current lack of notability. Biogeographist (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Redirect for the time being as per the above, simply WP:TOOSOON considering the book has yet to be released. In the future (assuming it is indeed released etc and does become notable), then by all means, it should be made into its own article. It is simply too soon in my opinion at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Buxton[edit]

Richard William Buxton (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 unelected candidate, placed third according to constituency article. No indication of meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. PROD removed by IP editor without explanation. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unelected candidates are never notable for such alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL as defeated political candidate. No other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:POLOUTCOMES. We almost always delete unsuccessful candidates, especially when they garner less than 12 % in a riding election. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and this makes no credible claim that he has preexisting notability for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments (and nom). Not notable coming in third in an election with no other claim to notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A3 and A7 MapReader (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Talking Smack[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

WWE Talking Smack (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. WWE Network post-show for SmackDown-branded pay-per-view events. Not notable in its own right. Copy-pasted from Pro Wrestling Wikia. Nickag989^talk 09:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the past we redirect non-notable WWE Network shows to List of current WWE programming but this doesn't even appear there.LM2000 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Talking Smack is a weekly show and has had some notable moments but this article provides no references, little useful information and appears to be a copyvio. Not prejudice against future recreation. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WWE SmackDown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.145.176 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason is? Nickag989^talk 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WWE SmackDown because its the show is about SmackDown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.73.122 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator Not enough arguments here. Definetely (for sure) the same IP user, who yesterday not long ago said to redirect to WWE SmackDown, for no reason, so this doesn't count. Nickag989^talk 19:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment yes i am the same user and what is for no reason, so this doesn't count???? i just gave one because its the show is about SmackDown so redirect it to smackdown or wwe network or List of current WWE programming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.131.239 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck your duplicate !vote.LM2000 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7). -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jozeff[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Article attempts to inherit notability from events the person was involved with, and sources located during WP:BEFORE search offer no evidence of individual notability. Improvement tags repeatedly removed by author without making any effort to address this issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (A7). Fails WP:MUSICBIO among others.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Echoing both the nom and Kupdung's comments (I'd say speedy but it keeps getting declined anyway...) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chrissymad: I'm happy to explain myself here - the Speedy was first declined by me, when the article was at this stage, because I was hoping the article creator would be able to flesh out the claims they had made. Unfortunately, all they did was remove improvement templates and make the article worse, which is why I support deletion of this article despite declining a Speedy Delete under WP:A7. I hope this makes sense! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus about whether to redirect; this can be resolved by creating a redirect and then challenging it via RfD. For those concerned about losing content, here is the article in its unsourced entirety: "Health and Physical Education Complex is a 5,100 seat multi-purpose arena in Fort Valley, Georgia in the United States. It was built in 2004. It is the home of the Fort Valley State University Wildcats basketball teams."  Sandstein  08:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Physical Education Complex[edit]

Health and Physical Education Complex (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)

generically titled article about a apparently non notable arena for a minor college basketball team. Name is too generic to redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; too generic to redirect. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fort Valley State University#Athletics and redirect. Clearly not notable for a stand-alone article, but searching on Fort Valley Health and Physical Education Complex turns up plenty of hits (mostly passing mention of events being held there). It seems to be an important part of the university and should be mentioned there. MB 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Why the heck would we redirect the entirely generic term "Health and Physical Education Complex" to a specific article on a school? If it were "Foo Health and Physical Education Complex", I would have boldly redirected it and been done with it. Merging would be inserting the jist of the one sentence that this article consists of into the school's article. But a redirect, for lack of a more elegant term, is just plain dumb. Frankly, MB, your position makes no sense whatsoever and will only serve to prolong this. John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that seems to be its WP:Commonname. I found things like " Handicapped parking is available near the Health and Physical Education Complex and Wildcat Commons residence halls" and "children and seniors flocked to FVSU’s Health and Physical Education Complex" or a shortened form "HPE Complex (New Gym)". Some cases append the university as "The Health and Physical Education Complex-Fort Valley State University". It may sound generic to you but that is how it is named. MB 04:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Health and Physical Education Arena, another generic sounding name that has existed as a stub for over 10 years, which should probably be handled the same way with Texas Southern University. Do you want to handle that too? MB 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too should be handled the same way. Here's an example from a notable arena to illustrate my point. Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall, the basketball arena at Indiana University, was formerly named simply Assembly Hall (the school essentially sold naming rights, a sad sellout situation IMO, but that's a different discussion). Its article here was titled Assembly Hall (Bloomington) prior to the rename, disambiguating the generic name in the title. Anyone in Indiana would know that Assembly Hall was the gym at IU (and most still call it that), but due the generic name, its title was disambiguated. Half the name references you gave added a disambiguation, and I think it's safe to assume the others could have been disambiguated from the context of the source. If a person were to come to Wikipedia to search for info on this arena, first, given the world - wide footprint of Wikipedia, it's doubtful their search term would be this title. Second, they would probably preface the current title with the school name. So what is going to come up if they do that? The school's article! So are you proposing we move this page which we are in agreement is a non notable subject, to a different title then redirect it to an article that will come up before this one in a search? You already found one article with a very similar name, and I'd place money on the fact that there are many more buildings on college campuses world wide with similar names. A redirect in no way serves the reader. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is averaging two views per day, and it is linked from two other articles. So people are finding it somehow. I am proposing that it be merged in the FVSU article (which surprisingly doesn't link to it), and a redirect be left - to avoid redlinks and to aid in searching if someone did look under this name. There is no need to disambiguate because there are no other titles at that name. I've searched on google, and found three others (at York College - Queens NYC, Southern University Shreveport, and Cal State San Bernadino) and none of these are mentioned in the articles on those places. I think the one at FVSU may be a little more significant than the others because it has a 5000 seat arena; it's more than a gym complex. I also found Health and Sports Center as a third similar case that should be merged to its host university as well (with a redirect for the same reasons). MB 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Texas Southern arena, that is a Division I basketball arena, and will be hosting Houston University games next year in addition to TSU games, so I'd argue it's notable and should not be merged. Conensus seems to be Division I basketball arenas are notable, given the significant coverage they receive. This one may be different since it's not Division I. Smartyllama (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Powers[edit]

Andy Powers (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neither the coverage of him as a player or as a coach rises to the level of notability and passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tried to find notability guidelines for radio broadcasters/sports broadcasters, but found no guidance. There are 7 listed "Boston College Eagles football broadcasters", although each one has more on his resume than Andy Powers. I did find that he has done color commentary for BC hockey for several years now, so I think it might be appropriate to rewrite the article to focus on that rather than delete. Bill McKenna (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Indeed, there are no notability guidelines covering sports broadcasters, which would mean that they'd stand and fall on the GNG. The subject doesn't meet it, and our standard practice is certainly not to keep an article just because there aren't any SNGs bearing on the subject. Ravenswing 22:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG as far as I can find. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag League Greatest[edit]

Tag League Greatest (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 about a one-time tournament in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs or links to the promotion itself and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wrestle-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.86.216 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 03:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't seem notable 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to indicate notability from what I can find.  MPJ-DK  03:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No rationale given regarding why redirecting is a viable solution. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F-1 Tag Team Championship[edit]

F-1 Tag Team Championship (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 about a wrestling championship in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be social media, non-independent, or blog and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this title. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - totally agree with nominator.  MPJ-DK  00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wrestle-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.86.216 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nahas Mala[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of the leader of a student organization, which just asserts that he exists and contains neither the substance nor the sourcing needed to make his existence any concern of ours -- apart from one article about him on a website that looks suspiciously more like a WordPress blog than a real media outlet, every other reference here is either the organization's own primary source content about itself, or a glancing namecheck of his existence as a soundbite-giver in an article that is substantively about something else. This is not the type of coverage required to get someone over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - subject is mentioned at Students Islamic Organisation of India, but beyond that I do not see that he has been the subject of coverage that would be necessary to ensure NPOV, NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Additionally, this is touching upon WP:NOTRESUME. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if we were to accept the Deccan Digest as a reliable source, there's no substantial coverage there. And as pointed out by the nominator, none of the other references are really about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Haswell[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, which is written like a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced entirely to primary sources with zero evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media. While there are valid notability claims here that would get him into Wikipedia if the article could be sourced properly, there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The vigilante police force of an open community encyclopedia has arrived... Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all site where anything or anyone is entitled to an article just because they exist. Certain specific standards of reliable sourceability have to be attained before an article is allowed to exist, and enforcing those standards is not "vigilantism" — it's how the project works, and as a site administrator it's part of my job description. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:RESUME tone and WP:N not met, along with Bearcat's RS concerns. I'm beginning to think that the article creator may either be an agent for their subjects or is a WITI or Tribune Media employee, which would definitely trigger conflict of interest concerns. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Jkmarold isn't the creator in this instance — he's just raising stink because I nominated it as a response to his WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that Katrina Cravy has to be kept because this exists. This article was created by a user named "Tanyaalidina", not by Jkmarold. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, fair enough. I'm surprised this article has existed for so long to begin with. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. In the word "vigilante" there is also the word "vigilant" and thanks to the vigilance of people like Jkmarold here pages that should not be on wikipedia get nominated for deletion and as he said it is even less notable than the pages he creates. I suggest he spends a bit of time doing new pages patrolling he seems to have a knack for digging out non notable articles. Domdeparis (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wish we could have slightly lower inclusion standards, partly because I am convinced that Taniela B. Wakolo is actually notable. However I am going to hold off on creating an article on Wakolo until I can find some clearly non-LDS Church linked sources on him. This may take a while, since I also am not fluent in Fijian, and some may be in Fijian. However I have seen way too many overly promotional articles on people who are clearly not notable and realized we cannot adequately maintain even the articles we have with the current project participation level. Unlike some, I realize Wikipedia is not meant to be LinkedIn, and so we need standards of actual notability and not just exclusion of things that are hoaxes or unverifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we almost always delete local newscasters and producers, even when they win a local Emmy. Otherwise, we'd have hundreds of such articles, such as Richard Bagala and Fred Cwerner. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are lists, passing references, an IMDB page and dead links. The only substantive reference other than the non-RS IMDB, is a one-paragraph announcement in a local trade newsletter. That in not the stuff of notability. Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wichian Buri District. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 04:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Chicken of Wichian Buri[edit]

Grilled Chicken of Wichian Buri (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 has extremely confusing sections in comparison to it's title and passes WP:NOTCOOKBOOK TopCipher (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An article about the same subject was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken, also due to intelligibility rather than notability concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge with Wichian Buri District Redirect The article was very confusing - I've made some edits to get it focused on the title of the article, which if kept should probably be Kai Yang Wichian Buri OR Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken. Another option is to redirect it to Kai yang, since it's a regional version of Kai Yang. The find sources links should be to:

I vote for a redirect with some content added to the Kai yang article about the Wichian Buri regional version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like Petebutt's vote and changed to "merge".–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge with Wichian Buri District--Petebutt (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - TopCipher, if I agree to merge the cited content into Wichian Buri District, would that work for you? Then, we could ask to close out this item or have it withdrawn?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article, Bjj dev, merged the content into the Wichian Buri District article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Yadav[edit]

Vaibhav Yadav (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: No significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News search result returned with nothing to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as currently presented. Neither Times of India article referenced mentions the article subject at all. bd2412 T 23:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at first glance, seems to be notable but, as mentioned, a lot of the sources given don't actually mention Yadav at all Spiderone 07:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the above comments and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dank Memes[edit]

Dank Memes (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)

While this is a concept that would certainly qualify for an article if proper reliable sources could be added to support it, the only sources present here are Know Your Meme, Urban Dictionary and a YouTube video. And on a Google search, I can't find much improved evidence of better-quality sourcing -- the concept gets namechecked a fair bit in the news, but there's little evidence of it being the subject of media coverage. About all I can find, rather, is more unreliable sources such as Facebook and Reddit posts and more YouTube videos. As well, this is exactly the kind of topic where we have to be especially vigilant about insisting on top-quality sourcing, because it's a potential minefield of WP:POV editwarring and troll disruption. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but WP:TNT pertains here if YouTube videos and Urban Dictionary are all we can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I also did a search on this phrase when the question was raised at the Teahouse about whether an article could be written about it. To remain on WP, this article would need better sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Yunshui ^雲_水 11:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World 8-4[edit]

World 8-4 (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)

Guides to Super Mario Bros levels fail WP:NOTGUIDE - more suited for Wikia Nthep (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced game guide fos an individual level of a video game. I assume it's intelligible to people who are familiar with the game, but to me it's mostly gibberish. --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming-wiki. While certain content on gaming is important, this is very specific and goes into non-notable detail. Go to mariowiki.com, specifically this page if you feel this information should be available to SMB players. --Tuxipedia (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced, fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 06:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – unsourced, fails WP:NOTGUIDE and the writing is incomprehensible. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Super Mario Bros. because this article is, in fact, a part of that game. also, I think this is the only way for that article without deleting. maybe, we can save that article. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
  _{Contributions} 09:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a way of salvaging content from an article - which part of this article is actually encyclopedic content that can be saved? --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First part, end of Layouts part ("and all Goombas in a game become Buzzy Beetles, and game repeats"). i'll add some details if it gets merged. well, for example, world selection and stuff. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
_{Contributions} 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsourced, sloppy stub, that couldn't even be bothered to spell the name of its respective game correctly. Super Mario Bros. is a WP:GA. It's pretty obvious that no merging should be done here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No citations, offers no evidence of notability, most unlikely that there is any. Maproom (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No disrespect for the honest merge !vote, and the willingness to try to salvage something here, but this is ripe for a SNOW. There's nothing here that wouldn't have to be fundamentally rewritten to be remotely encyclopedic, even if it wasn't basically pure distilled original research, and didn't fail NOTGUIDE. The user has been pretty prolific at posting question at WP:TH, and I hate it when this kind of thing happens, but I seriously doubt they have the language proficiency to really contribute yet. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (but only to note that we do have one SMB level, World 1-1, but that's a far different case given how famous that level is.) --MASEM (t) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:SNOW delete per above rationales. No valid content salvageable in this garbage heap for a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unclear, unsourced and WP:NOTGUIDE - Remarkably similar to Underwater (course) supposedly by a different editor - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not a different editor. Both CU blocked. Nthep (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MILL (there are many levels, and there's no need to create a separate article for each one). Maybe there's a Wikia wiki the author could move it to? ~barakokula31 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOTGUIDE applies. Absolutely nothing notable about this - WP:MILL. Can we have an early WP:SNOW close. Seems no point in continuing to run this AfD. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a unsourced article that fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:MILL. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable independent sources. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater (course) as that article was deleted for basically the same reasons as described here. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - minor ground collision . Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision[edit]

2007 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision (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)

Minor aviation incident with no long lasting effects. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a very minor collision. It is in the same category as two cars having a fender-bender in a shopping mall parking lot. Just not notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really noteworthy just a bad day at the office doesnt pass any of the aircraft accident thresholds for a mention in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – same as the 2017 collision. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG, as above--Petebutt (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Neither article is very satisfying. If there was an airport design issue that contributed to the incidents that could perhaps be interesting to note somewhere, either at the individual airport article or at a general article like List of taxiway bridges (if a bridge was involved). --doncram 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above comments. The equivalent of a fender-bender with airplanes (via Ahunt). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete' - a minor accident, not notable enough to sustain an article . Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision[edit]

2017 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable aviation incident. Aircraft touching is not uncommon. The local newspaper calls[1] it a minor collision, this article calls it the same. A clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The media and the article describes this as a minor collision. It is in the same category as two cars having a fender-bender in a shopping mall parking lot. Just not notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really noteworthy just a bad day at the office doesnt pass any of the aircraft accident thresholds for a mention in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete − or we'll end up having an article for every time a pilot sneezed. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG, as above--Petebutt (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very common and minor incident. Wykx (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very minor incident which fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Lorigo[edit]

Joseph C. Lorigo (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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a politician whose main claim of notability is serving in a county legislature. This is not a level of office where every person is automatically entitled to an article under WP:NPOL -- local political figures are permitted articles if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability the way state or federal legislators are. And for sourcing, all we have here is his primary source biography on the website of the county government he's a member of, with no evidence of coverage in independent sources shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete county legislature members are almost never notable for such alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL as local politician with no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of local politicians Wikipedia would have from every country if their election alone was enough to secure a page? There has got to be some verifiable notability attained by the individual beyond gaining votesPupsbunch (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete This reads like it could be on this individual's campaign page. Pswny (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)(talk) 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per the above and nom. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi KOH[edit]

Ifeanyi KOH (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 individual. No coverage in WP:RS; sole coverage is from blogs, twitter, facebook, etc. Fails WP:ANYBIO generally, and WP:NACADEMIC specifically. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable individual lacking reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ANYBIO ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability is not evident. The body, Koh heads, NAFSTS, doesn't seem to be notable either. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect prior to merge. It seems to me that for the most part merging seems to be the favoured option. I will blank and redirect Student government political party and Student government party to Students' union for now. Anybody is then free to merge in the material from the Student government political party to any article(s) that they think is suitable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student government party[edit]

Student government party (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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Currently it is simply an editor's definition of a topic. Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article creator has redirected Student government party to Student government political party, so I'm including the usual AfD search tags for that title too, for what it's worth. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student government political party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom (I would have tried an WP:A7 but no matter). Main article students' union makes no mention of them, except in the India section which mentions links to real political parties there. Created and de-prodded by a problematic editor, too, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An impressive amount of work has been done and the potential is much greater than I had thought. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a concept made up by the article creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This happens only in Hollywood films as painful satire, not real life. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as the article is greatly expanded from when it was nominated for deletion.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've expanded it what you've decided are examples of the concept, but the sources don't use the term "student government political party", so I think we're drifting into original research. It's still a delete for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we should rename it to the most appropriate title, and that solves the problem.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (including the Redirect) None of the sources refer to "Student government party" as a notable, separate entity. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not voting yet to see how a few more days expansion looks. (This should have been a WP:DRAFT to avoid being judged in such an early state). So far, I think it's demonstrated the phenomenon exists, but not whether it's independently notable enough for a dedicated article. A section or integrated mention of it on Student governments in the United States would be a sensible alternative approach to consider. Mortee (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching "campus political party" finds other mentions. I listed a few (not necessarily reliable) sources on the talk page in case they help anyone. Mortee (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If none of those sources explicitly reference "Student government party" or "Student government political party" then they're no good. We can't keep moving the goalposts here. You can't say "use this, it sounds like what the article might be about." Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So rename it "campus political party".--I'm on day 4 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not how Wikipedia works. You can't say "My article is wrong, let's keep changing titles until someone finds references that fit that title." My suggestion to you is to work on a draft in your sandbox and submit it through the Article for Creation process. This current article (and please don't move it again) has no place on Wikipedia because its subject matter does not meet the notability guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Insisting that the exact phrase be used is odd. Talking about "parties" in the context of "student government" e.g. here should be relevant. In any case, some do say "student government party": [2], [3], [4]. Again, I'm not saying these establish notability - none are treating the topic of these parties separate from particular examples. This might be best served by folding it in to another article and I'm witholding judgement for now. I do say though that these sources show this isn't "a concept made up by the article creator" as a previous commentor said. Mortee (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd to insist that an article should be about what it claims it's meant to be about. If it's the general concept of student government in the US, which is all it contains at the moment, then we have Student governments in the United States. If it's about student activism in general, we already have Student activism. We also have Students' union which includes sections on student bodies. So, tell me, what is this article going to add? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be about the phenomenon of political parties formed within student bodies for election to student governments, separate from student activism in general. It's possible for those to be referred to in sources without the specific substring "student government political parties". I haven't yet taken a view on whether this article should stand alone or be folded into Student governments in the United States Mortee (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia's view is that there shouldn't be two articles covering the same subject matter. It's really simple, not something that requires "taking a view" - it's a straightforward policy - see WP:A10. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with any subtopic, the question is whether there's enough to be said about this (parties in particular) that it can't be reasonably folded into the supertopic (student government). That's what I'm waiting to see as the article expands. I'll disengage from this for now and see how things stand in a few days. Mortee (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case the article doesn't change in those few days, it's worth noting that Student governments in the United States doesn't use "party" or "parties" at all, so A10 doesn't apply and a merge (to some degree) would be better than a pure delete if the article itself doesn't stand, to cover the fact of these student government political parties existing. Mortee (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree merging would be better than deleting.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or userfy - right now it's a total mess yet there appears to be a kernel worth saving. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does userfy mean?--I'm on day 4 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there are evidence that such a thing exists. In addition, Hong Kong's universities have a vibrant student government political party scene as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they were involved in the umbrella revolution, and some may have been in the high schools also.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but very carefully as it's a mess but has some potential merit (per Bearian, above). The subject exists - we call them "Factions" in Australia - although I doubt this is the best possible name for it, and most of the info probably belongs in articles about the individual student unions themselves. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that this is treated as a synthetic concept in any meaningful way in reliable sources, beyond discussion of individual student government parties. Or better yet move into Draft if author wants to try to find such sources. Martinp (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of this material can be used in Student governments in the United States, and some in articles about the individual student bodies mentioned, but I don't see any evidence that this is treated by sources as an independent topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design[edit]

Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design (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 created by apparent COI editor (see use of "we" in edit summary). PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "We are indexed in DOAJ, BASE and EBSCO. Also, we are indexed in minior bases like World Cat or I2R. We received result from preevaluation proces for Scopus base. I can send you their possitive answer. Definitly, we will apply for Scopus in September." DOAJ, BASE, and EBSCO are not selective databases in the sense of NJournals (and WorldCat and I2R even less so). If the journal gets included in Scopus, the article could be recreated but at this point, this is definitely too soon. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not happy with your proposition and of course, I do not agree. Please find in bellow e-mail from Scopus pre-evaluation. If it is necessary, I will send you pfd file with pre-evaluation results. This month we bought doi numbers and that is a reason why we are waiting for September. Also, in 2019 we will apply for Web of Sciences. If you have more information about citation our journal, I will send you results next week.In that results you can see that our journal is cite in a lot of journals indexed in the best bases like WoS or Scopus. In the end, you will decided, but I am sure that our journal will have impact factor in next few years with or withouth wikipedia page.

(Redacted)

--Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm sorry, but a form letter from Scopus that they will consider your journal does not mean anything. If your journal gets included in any selective databases, that's the moment to create this article. At the moment, there's no way of predicting the outcome of that evaluation process. --Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with you. In the future, we will be included in Scopus and WoS (it does not matter when, 2017, 2018 or 2020...). In that moment, Wikipedia pages will not be necessary for use, but today is important to have Wikipedia page. With Wikipedia page, other scientific workers can find information about us. --Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Do not ask what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia. WP is not a place to promote your journal. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment conflict of interest established here. FYI. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nemanja Kasikovic: I asked you here to not post the contents of someone else's email in public. Please do not do that again. Ina any case, two editors have now told you that doing so is a pointless exercise, as it confers no notability upon your journal. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the orginal PROD; no further notability has been established. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Nemanja Kasikovic (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much for everything. I told my opinion and reasons why I think that Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design deserves Wikipedia pages. It's hard to create something out of nothing, especially if you are from a small country like Serbia. As an editor, I am trying to make great journal, and I am sure that I will do that. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design will be a part of Scopus and WoS base with or without Wikipedia page. This is my last post. The final decision is up to you. All the best.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too soon. I see no problems with recreation after the journal gains more renown - being indexed in databases and having a decent citation index will help. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too soon to be able to tell . DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Award for Best Performance by a Vocal Group or Chorus[edit]

Grammy Award for Best Performance by a Vocal Group or Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not require its own article vast majority of information is already in the Grammy Awards of 1960 & 1959 articles.. Other nominees is not sourced and not required. ツStacey (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article should be expanded to include details about the nominated and winning artists/works. Alternatively, if this Grammy category was merged into another, then a redirect would work. Please do not delete a page about a Grammy award category. We have (Good status, BTW) Wikipedia articles about categories only presented for one year (examples: Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording, Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental), so there is precedent for keeping even short-lived awards. There are sources on the article's talk page for expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a Grammy, which means plenty of media coverage. If there were a Discontinued Grammy Awards, then it could be merged there, but otherwise, there's no good redirect target. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clarityfiend: Thanks for your improvements to the article. Now that the article is sourced, can I change my vote to speedy keep and close? :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For large-scale awards programs such as the Grammies or the Oscars where awards are presented in many categories, the most useful presentation is for us to have a separate article about each year's ceremony that lists the winners in all categories for that year and a separate article about each category which lists the winners across the years in that category. Each category does not need to separately clear WP:GNG on its own separately from the fact that the overall awards program has already cleared GNG, because the category is not really a standalone topic — the burden of clearing GNG is on the Grammy Awards as a whole, not on each individual category. The separate by-year and by-category articles are a formatting choice; we spin off the separate subpages in order to keep the parent article at a manageable size, not because each category is really a truly standalone topic independently of the Grammies as a whole. Yes, there's some potential for this to be improved, but it should be kept — because if it doesn't exist, then where is a user supposed to go to (a) compare the winners across the years in which it was presented, or (b) find any information about why it stopped being presented after 1960? If this category had been presented only once, then we could justifiably redirect it to the article for that year — but if it was presented more than once, then there's an WP:XY competition between the years. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcats and Clarityfiend. Worth keeping as it was a Grammy. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prime, Inc.[edit]

Prime, 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)

Not notable, the only reference used that is not their own website is used to point to a fact that isn't stated in the source. "second largest refrigerated carrier.. in US". ツStacey (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to find significant independent coverage (though there is difficulty because search results are obscured by the commonness of the word "prime"). Peacock (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above comments. Most likely non-notable (did not find anything noteworthy in a short Google search). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reno R. Rolle[edit]

Reno R. Rolle (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 was previously kept on procedural grounds as the nominator turned out to be a sockpuppet.

This article is an obvious autobiography. It has only two real editors, both of whom have no contributions to Wikipedia outside this topic. The article has superficial referenciness, but the sources are all churnalism - press releases masquerading as news (or in some cases not even masquerading, as PR Newswire is cited).

There are trivial mentions in some sources, but the primary claim to notability appears to be an award from Natural News, which is a bit like being given an Andrew Wakefield Prize for vaccine research.

I have looked for reliable independent sources that are about (rather than merely namechecking) the subject, but I drew a blank. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Majority of the article is based upon WP:OR. The reliable secondary sources included in the article either barely mention him in passing, but more often doesn't mention him at all and merely used to fill in with side trivia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few of the references that I checked show either no mention of the subject of this article, or only an in-passing mention. An article on a person is not the place to add minor details about BōKU International—if the organization is notable, write an article about it where ref 25 could be considered (I looked at that and it shows a passing mention for the organization but none for the person, and the mention looks more like an ad). Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find notable sources in a source check. Going through the sources provided in the article and searching for mentions of Rolle led to almost nothing - either passing mentions and in other cases hits on "Roller" with no mention at all.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above comments and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranaya Marmaram[edit]

Pranaya Marmaram (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)

Cannot find any indepth coverage of this film - Not entirely sure it exists at all? Link to IMDb not an actual link - Possible hoax? ツStacey (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The movie exists and you can even watch it online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.33.253 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability; the YouTube link provided above is not enough Spiderone 07:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. No evidence of notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea[edit]

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea (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. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary source. Topic has 0 results from a reliable video game source search. The1337gamer (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It was adapted into a manga series which is significant, but I also couldn't find any notability for the manga. SL93 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Coetzee[edit]

Pieter Coetzee (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 am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

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

Non-notable cricketers. Fails WP:NCRIC per this discussion at WT:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do not pass WP:NCRIC and the other sources referenced are mainly a set of scorecards / stats pages, so not enough to pass WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Fails WP:NCRIC – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nn competitor in notable competition. Not unusual. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Close (video game)[edit]

Stay Close (video game) (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. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete agree with nom. Does not meet notability. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Little/no presence in the WP:VG/RS search, indicating weak, if any, notability. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources available on this topic. The only sources in the article at the moment are store pages, which are not suitable by themselves. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The Dev Hello guys, I'm the developer of the game. I have the good intention to make this Wikipedia page reliable as much as possible. Just will take a little time and efforts for me. The sources are limited to primary store page of the game, because we don't have much presence online, but I can state the true facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarfios (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're really the game's developer then you are a conflict of interest in the editing of the article and your opinion here. TheDeviantPro (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read that's a discussion from the entry page, so it's suitable. After all isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia after all, as well as being informative? I'm just trying to document my game as a prime source.
• Delete Lacks Third-party and reliable sources. Easily fails WP:GNG. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no more reliable source than the Steam page.** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarfios (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steam store pages are primary sources. Content on them is controlled and written by the developer. Wikipedia's notability guideline states that the topic needs significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above and nom. Website also does not currently exist (Google Chrome on my computer could not find it?) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream Ideas[edit]

Upstream Ideas (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)

Pretty obscure webcast/radio commentary operation. Also, utterly unsourced: every single reference is from Upstream Ideas itself. Calton | Talk 09:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – due complete absence of secondary sourcing to indicate notability as per WP:GNG, and due to the article appearing to be at least somewhat promotional in nature rather than encyclopedic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage exists. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Pineda[edit]

Enzo Pineda (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 independent sources in the article. A search turned up a rather thin IMDb entry. Minor appearances in reality shows, on TV, and in films. The corresponding article in Tagalog Wiki supplies no evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. A search for supporting references to establish notability turned up nothing beyond trivial mentions, and tabloid journalism. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Most sources, from what I could find, are from unreliable sources or entertainment sites such as Starmometer and PEP (Wikipedia reliability unknown). However, he does appear to have been covered in some reliable sources, such as this one by the Standard (the Standard is a major newspaper in the Philippines, albeit not one of the "Big Three"). There's also this source from The Philippine Star (one of the Philippines' top three newspapers) and apparently some coverage by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (one of the other "Big Three" papers). His acting roles don't seem to be that big yet, but given the coverage I've found, he probably passes our notability guidelines, if only by the slimmest of margins. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BARE and Narutolovehinata5. He's appeared in films beyond the one realty show. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing My Lobster[edit]

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

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

A purely local comedy group. Nothing but local sources, and no evidence of notability outside the San Francisco Bay Area -- and I'm skeptical about even that level of notability. Calton | Talk 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In the previous AfD from 9+ years ago, the decision was to keep, but it seems like they really haven't gained any form of global notability since then. As mentioned, all of the sources are local, and it seems that most references to them are. I don't believe there is evidence that they are globally notable enough to garner their own article. bojo | talk 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Airbus. Content may be merged from history as editorial consensus may direct. Disambiguation is obviously not an option because there are not multiple pages with the title "Airbus A3xx series".  Sandstein  08:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A3xx series[edit]

Airbus A3xx series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Low-quality article, but more importantly little here is not covered elsewhere. This may be rewritten and expanded into something like Airbus civilian products (A3xx is not a common term), but for now this is better as a redirect than an article. feminist 08:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment A3XX is pretty common, but it is a synonym of A380. However, "A3x0" is used for the series of aircraft. So rename to Airbus A3x0 series per [5][6][7][8] etc -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, there is already a list in Airbus, in fact two as the article contains a list of aircraft types as well as of orders by type. FWIW and pace OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Boeing 7x7 is (rightly) a redirect also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to disambig page rather than delete. Where would this redirect to? Nördic Nightfury 13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Nightfury: To Airbus, as already indicated, where the relevant lists are that I discussed. The lists already point to each of the aircraft types, so no further "disambiguation" is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Airbus then Delete. This article serves as content fork and is an unlikely search item. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD:G11, company marketing director Ollpsson blocked as advertising-only account. – Athaenara ✉ 23:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaplanet[edit]

Mediaplanet (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)