< 20 December 22 December >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pittsburgh sports seasons[edit]

List of Pittsburgh sports seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:LISTN as too generic of a topic (as it a "List of X of Y" as it is actually a List of Lists of Pittsburgh-based sports seasons and possibly a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization) and as a compilation of other lists making this appear to be WP:LISTCRUFT.

This appears to have been unmerged from a section in Sports in Pittsburgh#Performance of the 4 major sports and then further expanded to include other popular teams. However, this list is huge and not what would be considered generally helpful. Each list has to be abbreviated to the point of being incomprehensible even to those who understand which each abbreviation might mean. In reality, this is just a confusing compilation of lists that already exist, in a better format, found at List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons, List of Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons, List of Pittsburgh Power seasons, List of Pittsburgh Penguins seasons, List of Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball seasons, Duquesne Dukes men's basketball#Yearly results, List of Pittsburgh Pirates seasons. As this list is only link to one other article, it is also very out of date and likely to stay that way most of the time as the one editor whose pet project this was seems to no longer be active. Since this was originally split off from the Sports in Pittsburgh article, I would propose this List of Lists be deleted and the section in Sports in Pittsburgh that links here be expanded in prose with cited materials discussing the success of the teams in Pittsburgh (the list with the total number of championships and seasons won is already directly below the section that links to this list). Yosemiter (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:57, 22 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Clare[edit]

Tiffany Clare (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 writer, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage. The only "references" here are book reviews from a website whose own "about us" page describes itself as guaranteeing a review to every indie or self-published writer who submits their book at all -- which basically makes it a publicity platform, not a reliable source that's organically making its own editorial decisions about who to cover -- and her only potential notability claim is being an award finalist for that same PR platform's own internal year-end awards. But as always, every literary award that exists at all is not an automatic notability pass -- we care only about the major literary awards that get media coverage, not about small-fry awards that can be sourced only to their own websites about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:47, 21 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Quinn (copywriter)[edit]

Pat Quinn (copywriter) (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)

Can't find any sources to confirm this person would pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The one RS cited in the article is from the Edinburgh Evening News, his employer, so it doesn't count. Other than that, searches of Ghits, GBooks, GNews, and Highbeam turned up nothing about this person or his work. ♠PMC(talk) 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 December 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. With no prohibitions of the mentioned draft being moved into mainspace J04n(talk page) 17:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt of the Enlisted[edit]

Revolt of the Enlisted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, recently created, has a number of irrefutable and irredeemable issues with it. 1) the title "Revolt of the Enlisted" is WP:NOR, as there is no mention of it what so ever in any of the given citations. It is an attempt to relate it to the actual Revolt of the Admirals, which was an actual event. 2) The article is filled with blatant POV throughout, with a strong bias against the rating change. This can be cleaned up, but it is still a problem. 3) This article does not appear to cover a notable event. It has not been described as an event, but rather just as a part of the histories of the Navy rates - which would be more appropriate to cover with a paragraph there, rather than with a stand alone article. In fact at List of United States Navy ratings#Temporary end of ratings there is a small section, not POV, that covers everything in this article. Garuda28 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 December 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. MBisanz talk 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haldanes[edit]

Haldanes (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 short-lived supermarket, They'd lasted less than 2 years before going into administration and the owner pulling the plug, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010Talk 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

If that's all you can give us, then that's not good vote. Where's the deletion policy basis? Where's the policy quotes that shows us companies are always accepted without a doubt? We've never had one. I actually read your sources and I don't think they add value. Sources never actually saved an article if it was spam from the get-go. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My post is not a "vote", it's an !vote. North America1000 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This is not a restaurant chain, it's a former supermarket chain. If you read the sources I posted as you stated, one would think that you would have been able to make this obvious distinction. No offense intended, but just saying. North America1000 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this article is good, then prove it. It doesn't make a difference what it is, the difference is whether the sources are good and they aren't, this is spam and spam one and the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a YellowPages. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it spam? They're out of business. Also, if you can't be bothered to take the time to learn very basic information about the subject of this AfD, you have no business participating in the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 04:35, 28 December 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) Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2018[edit]

Miss World 2018 (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:TOOSOON. Event is almost a whole year away and the article is either unreferenced or unreliably referenced. Delete and SALT till at least July 2018. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 21 December 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. MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for Hip Lovers[edit]

Songs for Hip Lovers (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 like Woody and I know it is considerably more difficult to find sources for older albums but there is simply too much to ignore with this one. I found one source, an Allmusic review; the discogs in the article is user-generated and unreliable. One source actually describing the album does not satisfy GNG and there is no indication it passes WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the widely condemned '10th edition', which was just a selection of a few albums that one of the authors recommended. The various real editions (1–9) aimed to review what recordings were available at the time of publication (1992–2008). I've added information from the 9th edition (no online view available) to the article, as I have a physical copy of the 9th and it describes the album. I hope that's enough. EddieHugh (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Otagburuagu[edit]

Emeka Otagburuagu (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 GNG and NProf. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 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 Nomination withdrawn because the article was heavily improved from this to this. And also with consideration of sources in Chinese. Ammarpad (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Li[edit]

Jessie Li (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)

Biography of non notable actress who fails WP:NACTOR. Heavily guarded by article creator. He removed any cleanup tag which can categorize it in maintenance cats despite being with only one IMDb source which is deemed unreliable by the community and is user generated. Search shows unavailability of reference to support biography. The only lingering source is put as an means to avoid deletion.–Ammarpad (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, delete just because IMDB is currently was the only source in the article? Do you not believe this is a multi-award winner? Wikipedia:GNG makes it explicitly clear that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:NEXIST. Anyway, if you truly doubted the content of the article, I've added sources so that the content currently does not rely "only on IMDB." --Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 27 December 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 per G7 and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'll note that this should not be eligible for REFUND since a consensus was developing in favour of speedy deletion regardless of the author requesting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Maxwell[edit]

Gregory Maxwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It's a list of things that he has said and done unsupported by reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ... discospinster talk 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In the field of coding theory: The CELT paper has been widely cited: 61 times.
  2. In the field of cryptocurrency research: He is mentioned in e.g. the Acknowledgements peer-reviewed search like [6].
  3. I would argue that he is notabile simply because he is the primary author of CoinJoin. The notability of CoinJoin has been uncontested since October 2014.
--Ysangkok (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling 61 citations "highly cited" is a bit of a stretch... – Joe (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, but a debate, how can more participation be a problem? So many AfD's are closed with hardly any discussion, I don't think attracting Redditors is a problem. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already did! --Ysangkok (talk) 20:42, 21 December 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 per WP:SNOW TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Princeton aerial object incident[edit]

USS Princeton aerial object incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article has unsubstantiated claims about a ufo incident in 2004 which is in the process of being debunked at metabunk.org (originally called the uss nimitz 2004 incident) https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage.t9190/ in short it is similar to a chilean case where "serious" authorities were 110% sure of an extraterrestrial explanation, it turned out to be an earthly airliner far away, ascending and leaving the airport this article here is part of a media campaign from Delonge ufo site https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ with Luis Elizondo head of the former ufo investigation at the Pentagon, probably intended to secure more funds for his project wikipedia should not post incidents which has no extraordinary values and is part of standard military encounters or faulty radar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requin8 (talkcontribs) 22:07 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the metabunk attempt to discredit this story is very weak. The major criticism is that a news source once pictured a "cigar-shaped UFO" photo in an unrelated story about this USS Nimitz/Princeton incident. So, ignoring that and the ad hominems. This article is noteworthy: it has significant coverage from reliable sources who lack any interest in the subject (The NYT reporter is their middle east correspondent) and refused to work from the source material of the To The Stars Academy, who weren't mentioned in the NYT article. There are multiple interviews with gov't officials in a variety of levels confirming the source material is authentic, unexplained, and can be sourced to a Pentagon operation known as AATIP. Luis Elizondo is in some articles, and is associated with To The Stars, but Mr. Bigelow, working for Pentagon and NASA, is unaffiliated with To The Stars and confirms Elizondo's information and expands on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talkcontribs) 22:45 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep, as creator I started the article as I was impressed with the veracity of the claims as they were published in the NYT and Politico and BBC, three of the strongest sources any current affairs article could possess. Any subsequent exploration of the story does not affect the original strength of the reporting. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the NYT reporter lacks any interest in the subject is spurious. LESLIE KEAN has been reporting on UFOs since the 90s, and wrote a book on it (#1 best seller in UFO category on Amazon). I just wanted to clarify the false claim the TheThomas. -70.174.93.74 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep This desperately needs better sources. While we have many news articles to reference as sources for this page I am rapidly becoming frustrated trying to locate the sources that the news articles have used. If this information does come from the government, is the result of a FOIA request, then there is a more primary source out there that needs to be linked to and referenced directly by wikipedia. Interviews with pilots by news agencies are first hand information, the source of the videos, must be governmental, and needs to be clearly identified and linked here. Without that degree of credibility this article is mere hearsay and not worthy of article status other than as a footnote on an 'unsubstantiated UFO sightings' page.

keep - It's news? The BBC had a news article about this incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RlbqOl_4NA (Narkstraws (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I see nothing wrong with an article about the news reports because they are real and may be documented, however, care must be taken to avoid the impression of supporting a belief in the details asserted by the subjects of our article. That impression may be created easily with adoption of terms used by subjects and including them in our discussion of the topic. That may be avoided by careful editing. Mirages and such may be seen by multiple people because they are phenomena that occur. The effects are supported by physics and scientific research, however, unsubstantiated details, interpretations, and projections about them should be avoided in our articles. Although a mirage cannot be detected with radar, it is a phenomenon that occurs. Interpreting it as a spaceship rather than an oasis should be left to the subjects experiencing it, not related as a fact to our readers. I would support merging this into the article on the program, if it is included appropriately in an expansion of that article. That might put it into better perspective. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:06, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Dieke[edit]

Ikenna Dieke (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)

Can't find any sources that shows subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. No academic reviews found of "most notable book" --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Rowe[edit]

Gigi Rowe (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 seems to be driven completely by links to YouTube videos and no reliable, third-party sources to establish a general notability guideline, or even establish BLP notability. livelikemusic talk! 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – all third party sources I can find seem to be blogs or trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. PriceDL (talk) 21:08, 25 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorous (rapper)[edit]

Glamorous (rapper) (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)

Notability-tagged for more than a year. No RS. Questionable claim to notability. Thought it would be good for the community to weigh-in. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm no expert in this area. If what you say is true, then we'll just have to wait to have a proper article on this person until such time as secondary sources appear and that's OK. Agricola44 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Agricola44. She seems very interesting, but until she gets written up in a RS, she's not going to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. I hope someone does write about her. I like her personal journey from hip-hop to Chaplin poet. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:49, 23 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Breakfast[edit]

Big Breakfast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and poor sourcing. As well as COI issues. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sherlock Holmes cast members[edit]

List of Sherlock Holmes cast members (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)

really arbitrary selection of films and it could never be comprehensive with the hundreds of films that exist. Look at List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes for example. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 13:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My objection would remain because you couldn't possibly build a comprehensive list of everyone who has played Lestrade, Hudson, Morstan, etc. in every form of media (radio, television, film, etc.) The article would be huge. It is better to have separate articles for separate characters; List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes for example. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spire Digital[edit]

Spire Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spire Digital is a web developer based in Denver which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. All the references given are to local biz sites in Colorado. I cannot find in depth coverage in any mainstream national independent sources. The article was created by a one purpose account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2017[edit]

Miss Intercontinental 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non notable event which fails WP:EVENT completely. Sourced with single news of rescheduling. No real independent coverage. The parent event Miss Intercontinental pageant was deleted two times via AfD. And later all its dependent pages (Miss Intercontinental country rankings, Miss Intercontinental History, and Miss Intercontinental winners) were deleted via AfD as non notable entirely. This page was created after those were deleted but it would've been included. Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 13:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 14:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 14:14, 21 December 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. The original concern (that this was a DAB with one entry) has been addressed with the creation of Faculty of Occupational Medicine (Ireland). If editors think that article should be deleted or merged, it would need to be discussed in a separate AfD. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Occupational Medicine[edit]

Faculty of Occupational Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this is the correct place for a Disambiguation page, but the page originally was an article for the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (United Kingdom), which was moved to create this disambiguation page. However, the other article in the disambiguation hasn't been created, so I would assume that the move is erroneous. I'd recommend moving the original back to this page, and deleting the DAB page.

If the Irish one does get created, then a DAB page may well be warranted, or, the current article could be expanded to mention the Irish one as well. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 11:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 11:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 11:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Generally a DAB page should not even be created before creating all pages to be disambiguated.Ammarpad (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense to have the page redirect to the full article on the United Kingdom, and leave a "For Irish see:" simply because this is only a small section against a full article Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You only created the redirect for the sake of it not for any guideline-based reason of WP:DAB. Disambiguation is not default. Its need is not created by creating one random redirect to section of an article which doesn't contain any information about the redirect. DAB is created when there's need for it not reverse of the case. So it should still be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:24, 22 December 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 keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#2. This nominator appears to be here only to be disruptive. This could also be a WP:SNOW keep, opinion is unanimous that this isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

2018 Pacific typhoon season (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)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball MCC214 (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 11:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 11:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 11:54, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walid–Robinson Opioid-Dependence Questionnaire[edit]

Walid–Robinson Opioid-Dependence Questionnaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on an eponymous screening test proposed by one MS Walid, created by user:Mswalid and referenced solely to papers by Walid, MS. Google scholar shows essentially no references to this at all. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 21 December 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. The one "keep" makes no argument. Sandstein 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OBASHI[edit]

OBASHI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this methodology is notable or even that it is being used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 14:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fergus, you have twice now cluttered this discussion with misplaced material. By all means edit the article. Then come back here and explain briefly how your edits now demonstrate notability. Incidentally the image you uploaded is, in my view, no evidence whatsoever. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roost Shared Storage[edit]

Roost Shared Storage (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 company per WP:CORPDEPTH- any content could be added to Spacer (self-storage) which later acquired this company (so additionally there will be no more coverage of this company in future) jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: This is a shame as I've found references. How much of the article can be salvaged? UaMaol (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How much of this article can be salvaged? UaMaol (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uamaol: All subjects on Wikipedia must be fundamentally notable to have an article, and this company simply doesn't meet our guidelines. I'm sorry- I know this isn't what you wanted to hear- but if you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website? jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uamaol: This I am aware of. As you said yourself "any content could be added to Spacer (self-storage)", how much of the article can be added to Spacer? I don't care massively about the company, but I believe in retaining and improving information instead of simply deleting it (unless it's COPYVIO). Merger into a section would be more appropriate I think therefore. UaMaol (talk) 19:03, 22 December 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Lyon[edit]

Richard S. Lyon (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:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll withdraw this, there's more coverage here than what I found. Joeykai (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an open mind, Joeykai. Too often, people get stubborn about these things. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a source that he played quarterback at Colgate? Joeykai (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's in the article. here it is--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:21, 21 December 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 deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) 108.210.216.182 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess Quiz[edit]

Guess Quiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced claims, promotional slant and likely COI by author. Failing WP:GNG pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:10, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twofold Bay Telegraph[edit]

Twofold Bay Telegraph (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 GNG. Appears to have been in existence for just a few months in the 19th Century, so unclear if notability can be established. Over 7,000 newspapers are in the digitisation program, so that doesn't establish notability either. South Nashua (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The National Library digitized "historic Australian periodicals". Historic content is exactly what criteria is all about. You may think the paper and its history are not notable, but a national government concluded differently. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. There's a difference between a national library preserving something because they're trying to preserve everything and preserving something because that something matters. Wikipedia policy looks down on instances of the former. South Nashua (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Seal Engineering[edit]

Bal Seal Engineering (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)

Company article that fails WP:NCORP with no reliable sources about the company itself, and the only additional coverage I was able to find was press releases or short mentions. PROD contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 21:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source citation added.

Due to the secretive nature of the commercial component industry, articles in engineering trade publications are the primary notable references available online, of which several are used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overthetransom381 (talkcontribs) 17:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:50, 21 December 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. There appears to be no independantly sources information here for a merge and the detailed assessment of the sourcing mean that the consenus is that this does not meet notability criteria. Spartaz Humbug! 09:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Foster (Australian sailor)[edit]

John Foster (Australian sailor) (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 student at Newington College, who went on to become a mid-level military officer, and in retirement did amateur research/investigation of a sunken vessel. The only in-depth source is an obit by his son ADS54 talk 11:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the attack on the creator. The bio was based on an obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald and said the following on his education: "and was educated at Newington College (1944–1951)." Your attack on me is an appalling example of not exhibiting "good faith". Castlemate (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention any individuals at all. It's an announcement of the discovery of the submarine's remains. SunChaser (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: John Foster was a sailor, that spent a lot of time researching and looking for HMAS AE1 after retirement, and this caught the attention of not only the Australian Government and the RAN but various others to include the Australian National Maritime Museum. The submarine was found but Foster did not live to see this.
The problems are that while the submarine is historical and the search a great human interest story, the man (subject of the article) does not pass any of the eight criteria we use from the "still considered essay" WP:MILPEOPLE nor GNG. As a sailor (part of the title) the subject is not considered "notable" and the historical records for a biography can not be just a memorial obituary written by the subjects son. Two of the four references on the article return WayBackMachine search sites, and the three awards (including OAM) are not high enough to grant inclusion. The submarine is covered by an article, the subject is mentioned there, and there are sources that back this up. This leaves the "event" of one book as an author and maybe researcher (?) under #4 (c and d)- "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" but there is only one. Without disregarding policies and guidelines the only criteria we can really use would be to ignore the "rules", claiming that inclusion does improve Wikipedia, even with serious sourcing issues. As stated above, there is no reason to have this article, no matter how much we like it. Otr500 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Doe[edit]

William Doe (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 person from Newington College who became an academic and mid-level university administrator. Being the head of a university department is not primarily dependent on academic achievement, so this is not evidence of being a notable professor. No technical contributions disclosed, and otherwise he is just another mid-level manager ADS54 talk 11:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointed out with evidence or by mere assertion ?. You're basing your reason on someone who in edit summary says he want show irritating pedantry (for reason, of course you're not aware of).
  • You also got it it wrong, "Dean" is never head of department talkless of dean of medical school. In many universities Colleges of medicine are larger than many standard universities in every respect, only they don't call their head VC, Chancellor, president or whatnot. Perhaps when you understand status of medical colleges you'll know many deans of such colleges are superiors of VCs of smaller universities. :*Also your assertions that Who is Who is partially written by the nominees themselves needs and is dubious both should've[citation needed].
  • Then if being Dean in one university is nothing and Provost at another notable university is nothing. What of being both?. The article is in very poor shape and stub and that's why you're weighing his notability to the shape of the article and its lack of many references but notability is never defined by the content or state of an article WP:CONTN. Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: The somewhat incestuous and self-promotional editorial processes of Who's Who is well known and should be easily verified. For example, our article on the British Who's Who discusses it. I don't see any reason to think the Australian version is any more scrupulous in its editorial processes. It's not a bad source, but it's not entirely independent either. The (O)DNB on the other hand is a rigorously edited reference work published by an academic press and, notably, only includes entries on dead people. That is the kind of high-quality and fully independent coverage that automatically establishes notability under WP:ANYBIO; not Who's Who.
I don't understand why you are being pedantic (and condescending) about the dean issue. We're not talking about other universities. Doe was the head (dean) of the University of Birmingham's Medical School. It should be self-evident that that is not the highest-level administrative post at the University of Birmingham. In fact WP:PROF#C6 specifically excludes deans and provosts. Holding two non-notable positions does not make a person notable.
I don't believe I mentioned the state of sourcing in the article. I'm familiar with WP:CONTN and don't need it explained to me, thanks. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Your analogy of UK's Who is Who and Australian to come to conclusion; they're all this and that is hasty generalization to push your point and in substance, argument from analogy which is fallacy.
2. Sorry, WP:PROF#6 didn't mention "universities" at all, and there is reason for that. So your alluded meaning that he must head Birmingham University (topmost position) before he satisfy that criteria is faulty from premise.
3. I hate pedantry myself and hope to use the most common words always (though not pefect) and avoid semantics manipulation. But the fact that you insist "dean of college (Medical)" and "head of department" is similar position is strange. I never meant to be condescending.
4. Guideline is not hard and fast rule, thats why every guideline page reiterates this. Read the general notes just below the PROF criterion you qouted –Ammarpad (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 08:07, 21 December 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. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage to meet the notability guideline. Killiondude (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Ellison[edit]

Alf Ellison (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 businessman from Newington College who was on a few boards and owned some horses ADS54 talk 11:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 11:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 12:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 08:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 December 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. Sandstein 12:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Theatre, Dublin[edit]

New Theatre, Dublin (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 GNG. Most of the refs only tangentially reference the theatre. South Nashua (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 07:58, 21 December 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. Sandstein 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Thunderbird[edit]

Chief Thunderbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a film actor, whose roles were nearly all as supporting characters rather than major ones. As always, actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles have been listed -- they qualify for articles if and when they can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to properly support the article. But the only hint of sourcing here is the external link to his IMDb profile, which is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability -- and the article has now been tagged as unsourced for almost two years. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can add to and improve the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 07:57, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafar Al Ghazal[edit]

Jaafar Al Ghazal (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, WP:BLP. -- HindWikiConnect 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- HindWikiConnect 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- HindWikiConnect 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HindWIKI: this nom has nothing to do with Pakistan. Please remove it from here and move it to Iraq related deletion nom. --Saqib (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friends @Arthistorian1977:,@RingtailedFox:,@Abishe:,@Anarchyte:,@Narutolovehinata5: & @Operator873: what is your comment?--IamIRAQI (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the page creator (IamIRAQI) has specifically requested my opinion which may present the possible appearance of WP:CAN, I recuse myself from this AfD and will not participate. Operator873CONNECT 21:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. FWIW I've reFill'd the references so that future !voters can read them easier. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. Same for me. Also, not being able to read arabic references, I can't have an opinion here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page is given only as links references to the songs and lyrics sites. There is no reliable sources of any newspaper site and othere provided here. -- HindWikiConnect 07:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- HindWikiConnect 23:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:34, 21 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shikin Gomez[edit]

Shikin Gomez (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 Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of US General Officers in Three Wars[edit]

List of US General Officers in Three Wars (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 a reasonable topic for a stand-alone list; no sourcing that suggests this is complete. Data appears inaccurate as well (regarding Milton Reckord being in the Vietnam War), probably due to this being original research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 08:40, 21 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Kelly-Clyne[edit]

Luke Kelly-Clyne (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)

Google search reveals no independent in-depth third-party coverage, just the usual vanity hits.

This article appears to be part of a walled garden being constructed by the paid editor. (Declaring that one is being paid is better than not declaring it, but doesn't make the resulting articles neutral or their subjects notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sure it appears that a paid contributor would have some kind of implicit bias in the proceedings of posting this simple bio page, why then is the option to disclose pay even allowed by Wikipedia at all? If my willingness to disclose my pay is itself the reason why I cannot contribute than what if any is my incentive for disclosing my pay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pescobosa (talkcontribs) and copied from talk page by Joe Roe.
@Pescobosa: No, work written by the subject cannot be substituted for sources written about the subject. If there is no reliable third-party coverage, we can't have an article, full stop. IMDB is not a wholly reliable source.
The ethics of paid editing are rather outside the scope of this discussion, but to answer your questions: we give paid editors the option to disclose and edit because it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and also because practically speaking it is difficult to stop them. However, as you should be aware from reading WP:COI and WP:PAID, the community as a whole strongly discourages paid editing. There is no "incentive" for disclosing. Wikipedia is an open community that operates on the assumption of good faith. Not disclosing your paid edits, as required by the terms of use and community consensus, would likely lead to a loss of editing privileges for abusing that trust. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Good Time[edit]

Real Good Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, article based on a a few reviews *form some pretty unimportant sources as far as I can tell) and chart listings. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect, which you chose to turn into an article. And I do not agree that the sources you have added are indepth analyses if the record. They seem mostly to be about the artist.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)\[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charting is not enough (especially in niche charts), it must still meet our wider notabilty rules, and being mentioned in a chart (even in the top 5 of the US top 100) is not significant coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charting alone isn't enough, no, but generally, anything that is able to chart in a country's all-format chart, especially a major one like the Billboard 200, is generally going to get enough coverage to meet the bare-bones of the WP:GNG. It's not a guarantee, but it is a relatively good indicator, which is why people make assertions like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:38, 21 December 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 dealt with. Merged and redirected to Group velocity dispersion. ansh666 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Group delay dispersion[edit]

Group delay dispersion (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)

Group delay dispersion (GDD) is reasonably well covered in the article on group-velocity dispersion (GVD). The two are closely related concepts, and since GVD is more commonly used (as per my understanding), it makes sense to move the content from this article into the article on group delay dispersion. I have added content from this page into the GVD page. I suggest we create a redirect for GDD to GVD. If the GDD article can be significantly improved with substantial contributions, feel free to suggest a keep. I do feel that there won't be a lot to add to this article beyond what is already there on the Dispersion (optics) and Group velocity dispersion articles. Quantumavik (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Optics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Please ignore the AfD nomination. I instead chose to merge and redirect. Quantumavik (talk) 03:16, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Young (filmmaker)[edit]

Heather Young (filmmaker) (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 filmmaker, who does not yet have a strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE or strong reliable source coverage to support it. The main notability claim present here is a student film award, and other than that all she has so far is honourable mentions and top ten lists rather than actual wins of major film awards -- and two of the three references here are primary sources, while the third is a mere blurb in an alt-weekly. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and/or better sourcing -- but as of right now, nothing present here is enough to qualify her for inclusion yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same blurb in an alt-weekly that I already addressed in my nomination statement. It is not substantive coverage for the purposes of clearing GNG, and even if it were it still takes more than just one source. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added another award she received. And here the Toronto International Film Festival chose one of her films as the 10 best of 2016. She's clearly. Notable. Winning awards and receiving coverage. How many "blurbs" and awards does it take? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making a top ten list is neither a notability claim nor an award. As for how many awards it takes, one award would be enough if that award were a Canadian Screen Award or an Emmy Award or an Academy Award or a BAFTA, but a hundred awards are not enough if they're all student film awards or mere honorable mentions at second-tier film festivals — the "notable because award" test for a filmmaker requires major awards, not just any award that exists at all. And as for how much coverage it takes, if she doesn't actually have anything (like winning a CSA or an Emmy or an Oscar) that would constitute an automatic notability pass, then it takes actual substantive and reasonably long articles, not just a blurb, to make a person notable just because media coverage of her exists. GNG requires substantive coverage, not just one blurb. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto International Film Festival is one of the world's most prestigious film festivals, akin to the Venice Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival with major studios from around the world frequently using the festival to make their films world premieres. Having an award at this one is a major notable accomplishment. --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, TIFF is one of the world's most prestigious film festivals — nobody said otherwise, and I live in Toronto and do a lot of Wikipedia's work on TIFF-related articles myself (you might, for starters, want to check who created all of the actual articles about TIFF's awards), so you ain't schoolin' me nuthin' about TIFF that I didn't already know. But she didn't win any award from TIFF — making a top ten list is not an award. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You implied the TIFF was one of "second-tier film festivals," hence the schoolin'. Sheesh. --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. I was referring to Montreal and Vancouver — the festivals where she got an honourable mention and a student film award — as second tier film festivals. She didn't get anything from TIFF that could be characterized as an award. "Sheesh". Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The TIFF, when even you admit is "one of the world's most prestigious film festivals," considering one of this person's films as one of the ten best of 2016 is a huge honor and an indication of notability. the Montreal World Film Festival is a highly respected film festival too. --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That fact could potentially support an article about the film (the condition being that we would still have to find reliable sources which addressed what the film was about.) But it's not an "award", or a notability claim, for the purposes of supporting a standalone WP:BLP of the filmmaker — because apart from a single human interest piece in her local media, all it got her otherwise was to have her existence glancingly namechecked in articles about the overall list rather than any noteworthy increase in coverage about her. And lots of film festivals can claim to be "highly respected" without actually being on the TIFF/Cannes/Berlinale tier of top-prestige festivals — Montreal's film festival isn't nothing, I didn't say it was, but it's not so very massively uber-notable that a student film award from there would confer an automatic must-include in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's from CBC News's local bureau in the subject's own hometown, not from the national news division, so it's not evidence that she's getting wider coverage for more than just "local woman does stuff". And even if we accept it just because it's the CBC, it still takes more than just one piece of substantive coverage to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the province-wide CBC Nova Scotia, not just some "local bureau." Between the major Toronto International Film Festival and Montreal festival awards and the province-wide in-depth coverage from now at least two sources, notability beyond a local interest has easily been established per WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the CBC does not have provincewide news bureaux as a separate level from its local news bureaux in the cities — "CBC Nova Scotia" is just the branding that CBC's local news bureaux in Halifax and Sydney both use in lieu of "CBC Halifax" or "CBC Sydney", not a separate division in its own right or a higher notability standard. Secondly, she did not win any award from TIFF (making a top ten list is not an award), and her award from the Montreal film festival was a student film award, not a notable film award that passes WP:CREATIVE. And thirdly, we do not have in-depth coverage from two provincewide sources — we have one piece of in-depth coverage from a local source, and one blurb in an alt-weekly, and nothing but namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CBC Nova Scotia is a province wide service for the entire province. Just because the it's based in Halifax doesn't mean it doesn't have coverage for the entire province and in fact covers stories in Yarmouth and Sydney which are hundreds of kilometers away from Halifax in either direction. --Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:33, 21 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidme[edit]

Vidme (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)

Stillborn startup Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:30, 21 December 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. Sandstein 12:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Passarelli[edit]

Lauren Passarelli (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)

created as an WP:autobiography, can't find any reliable sources to support this article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 1982 it was a big deal for that time, as well as 1984 being the first female guitar instructor and both occurred. Lsurber (talk) 4:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My point was that you've been here for about four years and have contributed to this article and little else. It seems that you may eithier be the subject of the article or someone closely associated with her. If you have a conflict of interest, you should disclose it, see Wikipedia:COI. As for the notability, I still believe that simply being the first female to graduate with a certain major (as opposed to the school as a whole) is not notable by itself regardless of time period, but I'm open to other opinions.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
,
That's because you and your two buddies have created hundreds of unnecessary articles over the years. You can choose to believe alansohn's wacky theory that I hate Teaneck or you can look at the facts. Can you explain to me why there are 206 articles on mayors from New Jersey (more than any other) and California (a much bigger state) is only at 196? What is troubles me is there is such a low standard for inclusion here.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 26 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Freeman[edit]

Jake Freeman (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)

Questionable notability, but even if marginally passing NSPORTS, this is a predominantly negative BLP issue that leads me to think it's better to err on the side of deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:28, 21 December 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 Brink's robbery (1981). Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward O'Grady II[edit]

Edward O'Grady II (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)
Waverly Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems lurking in these two articles. Nothing shows notability for these two officers besides being killed in the Brinks' robbery. That alone is not a reason to have articles on them being that we do not have articles on every single cop killed in the line of duty nor do we have an article on the third person killed in this robbery. Neither article contains much information that does not already exist in the robbery article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 12:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Philippines[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Philippines (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)

We already have a List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon so repeating mostly the same content on a country specific audience is not needed. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE with dozens of schedule listings and WP:NOR as list article is completely unsourced Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett M. Brown[edit]

Garrett M. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 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 keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 "fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The AfD process is not for content issues that should be resolved through editing. I encourage the new editor who nominated this page for deletion to discuss their concerns on the talk page, or to add other sourced content to the article themselves. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ejipura[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ejipura (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 familiar with this part of Bangalore. The article is nonsense and is a deliberate attempt to discredit a good neighbourhood. There have been a few problems as there are anywhere but this is sheer exaggeration by an irresponsible editor. He uses biased newspaper sources in which the reports are largely untrue. Forgive me if I misunderstand site procedures but I believe you expect all primary sources like newspapers to be verified by reliable secondary sources. There are no secondary sources supporting this garbage and never will be. The article is an insult to everyone in Ejipura. Bangalore Dhoni (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:23, 21 December 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 keep. Meets SNG.Clear-cut case. (non-admin closure) Winged BladesGodric 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Singh[edit]

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

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

Article is a microstub about a supposed player with mention in a generally unreliable primary source. I understand that the site requires reliable secondary sources to verify such content. I am a follower of field hockey in India and I know nothing of this player. I suspect the newspaper report to be bogus or grossly mistaken (it is possible that there is such a player but with a different name). I would say that this is irresponsible editing with scant regard for verification and a possible violation of your no original research policy. Bangalore Dhoni (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg[edit]

Government of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg (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 notability from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County. Unsourced for over 11 years. Analogous to a similar discussion. cnzx 00:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:27, 21 December 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.