< 11 February	13 February >

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John J Pezzin[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, despite claims made. Part of a mass creation of Pezzin family/surname related articles by User:Dpezzin, as you can see here. Caution should be taken: the article creator appears to be moving content in and out of draft space to avoid deletion, or even from Draft to Draft talk. So there's no telling where the article may be by the time this Afd exists for a while. He's editing disruptively and I daresay deceptively and he's got two warning on his user talk page thus far. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no credible assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and clear COI/self-promo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ignoring the COI and continued disruption by creator, this fails WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that point toward notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails any notability criteria and seems to be self-promotion Adamtt9 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious COI; aside from that, when what he's known for is apparently only "his aggressive freestyle riding with his signature trick being the back flip tuck no-hander" and no other sign of notability is given, then it's probably a failure of WP:GNG. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You have to be careful saying "back flip tuck no-hander"... That's no reason for deleting, but having it as a speciality isn't, to my mind, a reason for keeping. Nor is coming in at 51 in some competition a thing of any particular note as it stands. Being someone's grandson isn't of note either, unless the grandfather is/was a reigning monarch. Peridon (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absolutely no indication of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability --Whpq (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable under GNG and athlete, 0 sources, except his voting license. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Save Qualifying for the biggest freeride contest in the world is notable in the sport of mountain biking. Additional sources will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpezzin (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought this might happen. Dpezzin has created and has been steadily building Colorado Freeride Festival, apparently, at least in part, to make build a case for inherited notability for his relative. While the Colorado Freeride Festival does appear to be a notable event, merely participating in it would not mean that the cyclist in question meets WP:NCYCLING, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent established for many other riders who competed in this event as well, for instance Barry_Nobles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpezzin (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have established no "precedent" for your family member's notability. If other riders at this event are notable, it is not merely because they participated in this event. If they are not notable, their articles should be brought to Afd, as well. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70s revival[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced and unsourceable article about a purported musical genre. While it's certainly true that some elements of 1970s music have re-emerged as an influence on new music being made in the 21st century, there's no sourceable evidence that music critics treat that fact as a genre of music per se -- artists who do this are still classified as "pop" or "rock" or "alternative" or "indie" or "r&b" or "hip hop" or whatever, rather than as a distinct "70s revival" genre. And, in fact, the only reliable sourcing I can find for "70s revival" as a phrase is in the context of clothing trends rather than musical ones. Our role on here is not to invent musical genres by cherry picking anecdotal evidence that three or four musicians have had similar ideas — which is all that we've got here, as the entire proof of concept is the fact that Fountains of Wayne and Outkast have made songs that showed some 70s influences. Our job is to wait until the critics pin down a "genre", and follow their lead. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the genre doesn't exist. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Vision Windows[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is corporate advertising. It was kept at the first AfD on the basis of the promise of the admitted COI contributor to improve the article. There's been work on it since, but it's no better. It continued to promote the religious influences of the founder for the success of this quite small $40 million business. There has been some press attention, but it is on peripheral aspects, and the article presents it in a way that makes it advertising for the company, based on the stories of individual employees--the History section consists of the most trivial imaginable material. . Promotional articles that in practice cannot be improved should be deleted. I started a rewrite myself, but the promotional content is intertwined with the entire article in a way that makes it unimprovable. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined this AfC submission but eventually agreed that I might be wrong on the premise that there was (some) scholarly material about the company, but that has now been snowed under in promotional material. Mduvekot (talk) 17:01, 13 February 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. SNOW. Obvious case for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Construction Services[edit]

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

This is a greenhouse construction company with no coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find to establish notability. There are some directory listings that show when searching but that does not meet the sourcing need to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You beat me to the nomination. Ignoring the obvious COI, I can say this article has nothing by way of WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore fails WP:ORG. Declined speedy a shot time ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I originally tagged it WP:A7 then found that it had been previosly tagged for speedy deletion but declined. -- Whpq (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I am trying to WP:AGF, but this is one of many by the same creator. It appears they moved to draft space, only to move the article back to main space once they removed the speedy tag. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually been moving it in and out of draft space repeatedly in an effort to hide the article, it seems, from deletion. The banner tells us we have to take this Draft article to MFD, but if we do I daresay he'll move it back to article space. There are two warnings on his usertalk page and he's got a raft of Pezzin surname-related articles up for speedy deletion. When he tries and remove those tags, please revert and issue the necessary warnings and we can have him blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also frankly nuts because Dpezzin's disruptive edits here in an effort to preserve his spam articles on the Pezzin family and their firm are hardly the kind of online practices that engender trust. So if you're D Pezzin or one of his relations or are employed by Greenhouse Construction Services, you might want to take him aside and tell him to cut this out, for the sake of your own family's reputation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and actually speedy delete as there is absolutely no claim of significance or notability and is clearly promotional. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under company A7; article makes no claim to notability, and only reference is to company's website. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails any notability guideline, and as mentioned above, seems to be one of the unnecessary article creations by D Pezzin Adamtt9 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did detag it at one point, after wondering why an admin had tagged a Draft as A7. A quick look in the history told me it had been moved from article space, which explained that. There has been a spate of Pezzin related articles, but I can see possible notability for John Pezzin, but that's only a single event thing. This one would have been deleted by me had it not been in Draft space. This is a firm that puts up greenhouses. Good for them. I could do with a new one myself, but I'll be looking on my side of the Atlantic as delivery costs would be a bit high from Colorado to the UK. Peridon (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain the speedy deletion thing, Dpezzin had discovered that while he couldn't remove speedy tags himself, he could get them removed by moving his walled garden articles on his family members and his company in and out of Draft space -- as well-meaning editors would follow guidelines and remove the speedy tags while it was in draft. That's the only reason why this speedy deletion was declined. Later on, that stopped working, as we recognized what was going on and started simply reverting such page moves as disruptive editing. And it's why he's been blocked for 24 hours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:ORG.Theroadislong (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails notability criteria for WP:ORG. @Peridon:, Yes, I figured that was what happened when I returned and found the tag had been removed. I had already speedy deleted several of their tagged articles and decided to tag the rest. But after I left, they moved them into Draft space, nullifying the CSD tags. Glad to see the block. I've dropped a personal note on their page to give them a chance to discuss the issues. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codex card game[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources. I see sources for Codex: Card-Time, but that is a different game from a different developer. Fails notability. Rogermx (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and no evidence that it is even real. C&C, the supposed marketer of the game, has no info on their website. The other two links are instructions for other card games(!?!?). Nothing turns up on web searches.Glendoremus (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of RC Strasbourg[edit]

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

Very badly translated this is essentially nonsense in some places, and much of the content is just about the team Jac16888 ^Talk 22:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no basis for deletion provided in nomination. Based on references in article, appears to meet WP:GNG. The complaints about the article in the nomination could be addressed with editing. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT? As it stands this article is a massive pile of nonsense and speaking as a WP:PNT volunteer, no translator is likely to want to take it on. Starting from fresh translating would be much easier. Although there is a lot listed, a read through will show that the large majority of references are to rcstrasbourgalsace.fr, i.e. the team website, or fan pages--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is an essay. WP:GNG trumps WP:TNT. Also, WP:TNT doesn't require deletion. Bold editing would suffice. Nfitz (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to give it a try, I suspect you would retain little of the original content. Also upon further review of the references I am not convinced that GNG is met anyway, many seem to be primary sources or as Shawn says, about the club not the fans.--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some are primary, and some appear to be about the club, with only a brief mention of the fans. Though I just grabbed one to read more thoroughly, and it seems fine [1]. Besides, given what else exists at this level of play, do we really think that such a historic club wouldn't have their supporters achieve notability? Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No basis for deletion?" That's absurd. The editor Nfitz states on his user page that he has an elementary command of French, if so, surely he's capable of seeing that these references are about the club, not its fans. This is a blatant case of both TNT and WP:REDUNDANTFORK, to name but two. Delete. Absolute garbage.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz states he has an elementary command, that doesn't mean he could difference if the article is about the club or its supporters. I assure you, all sources are about supporters, not only the supporters, but the sources are reliable. "absolute gargabe" you should probably read the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be rude. I see no basis for deletion in the nomination statement. They aren't arguments to delete ... they are arguments to edit; so go ahead and edit. Some of the references may be unnecessary; but I've checked some, and they do talk about the fans - there's more than enough to establish WP:GNG has been met - and really nothing else matters. Furthermore, I disagree about WP:REDUNDANTFORK - there's only a little overlap with the main article. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very least I've added it to Category:Association football supporters, where other such pages do exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT. Whether or not there should be an article on the subject, it will need be rewritten entirely, which means one way or the other the content that's currently needs to go. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable content fork. Anything that can be reliable sourced can be mentioned on the main article. Giant Snowman 08:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please, France 3, France football, 20minutes.fr, TF1, are professionnal medias. If these sources can't be reliable, not a media could be in france. The debate is not about the sources, but should we keep and improve the article or delete it

Delete - Unnecessary content fork. JMHamo (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - instead of deleting it, edit it, and try to make it understandable. This article needs better translation, but the topic is interesting. Furthermore, sources are not only the official club website, but lots of French médias such as "France 3" - "France football" and "TF1". They do speak about the supporters, and how they are different than in other cities.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any useful material can be documented in the club article. Not sure how the supporters are notable separately. Number 5 7 09:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"not sure how the supporters are notable separately" acually, this article does not mention current football players' opinion, but several International well known players and staff talk about this club, such as Kevin Gameiro in Spain, Morgan Schneiderlin, Arsene Wenger in England. This is not because you do not understand French that there is not "any useful material can be documented". Moreover, all sources are either independant or official communication. There must have 8 notable club supporters, no more, and Strasbourg is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviyeah (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't have any independent notability Spiderone 10:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Possibly Merge - While this article is badly written and organized I'd like to remind some of the "delete" voters that Deletion is not cleanup. Still I am not so convinced that the article is notable, however I think it is very well sourced and the information contained in it could possible stand in a stand alone article or probably better be merged with the main club article. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:13, 15 February 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 Calhoun College. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Window Smashing[edit]

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

An incident at Yale University that received apparently short-lived media coverage because of its political (in a broader sense) motivation. It seems that this is a subtopic of the dispute about the name of the (now to be renamed) Calhoun College, and is best covered in the context of that article. On its own, it has an air of WP:NOTNEWS / WP:1E to it. There's a merge proposal on the page, but with no discussion, so this proposal can perhaps help that along a bit. Sandstein 20:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calhoun College (which will soon presumably be renamed Hopper College), where this incident is already discussed in context. Having a separate article about this incident is not needed per WP:NOTNEWS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calhoun College § Modern controversy, where this is covered at. Anything else worth potentially merging can be accessed in the Yale Window Smashing article's Revision history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hafsteinsson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The league in question, Úrvalsdeild, is chock full of player articles similar to this one, meaning that the player is not fully professional and does not play for any national team. Why is this sourced article being deleted when many others remain?QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: No worries. All of them can be nominated for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a legitimate argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and nowhere near WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY.--Snaevar (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Note the Icelandic top division is not fully professional, so never likely they'll ever be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 19 February 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. clear consensus to keep after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Kretz[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to be included in English Wikipedia. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep My searching did find an interview but that doesn't help notability. The article sources provide some depth but that all seems to be self sourced like this. Fails WP:COMPOSER. The awards are notable and perhaps well known. Which may be enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He did win the Austrian State Prize for Music in 2004. I've added the ref for that to the article. He also won the Theodor Körner Prize in 2004, but I can't find an online reference for that from the official site because it only has archives back to 2008. But these would indicate some notability. Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still an active composer? If not, I fail to see the point in keeping an article on a nominally notable Austrian composer from the past. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 09:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A listing at the Music Information Center Austria [de] (here) shows encyclopedic relevance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – just added some references to the article. Being a) head of the composition department of Europe's largest music university and b) Vice president of Austria's ISCM section should add some insights regarding relevance. AthanasiusKircher (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE and Voceditenore. Let's assume the article is not misleading (as the other info seems to be correct) and he won both prizes. These appear to be/are among the highest such Austrian national awards in Kretz's field that he could win. But even just the Austrian State Prize for Music only would suffice, as a significant Austrian music award. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Austrian State Prize is sufficient claim to notability under ANYBIO1, which is now sourced. I'm seeing some results in Google books link. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now suitable sourced. Prizes are enough to indicate notability. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs clean-up but otherwise meets WP:CREATIVE more generally WP:ANYBIO — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE, and, as said by other editors above, Austrian State Prize is plenty notable enough. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:53, 15 February 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 procedural close, wrong forum (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions})

George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States[edit]

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

Proposing a merger and re-direct of George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States to presidency of George W. Bush. No other (U.S.) presidency article is similarly divided into terms, and Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of Bush's presidency would benefit from having one comprehensive Bush presidency article organized by topic rather than chronologically. Including pictures, the three articles are a combined 220k bytes, which is comparable to the Obama presidency article, so excessive length is not a concern. Finally, all three articles need re-writing and re-organization anyway and merging the three articles into one article would be a boon to that effort, which I would at least begin. Orser67 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close AfD is not the place to discuss mergers. Use WP:Proposed mergers or start a section on the article you want to merge the others into (presidency of George W. Bush). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:11, 12 February 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. as an hoax (G3). (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thabo Modi[edit]

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

The subject is not listed in a list of Presidents of South Africa. The only reference is a dead link. Unless this article is corrected, it should be deleted because it is important to list Presidents of nations correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator appears to be creating a walled garden of pages about fictional South African politicians. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:13, 12 February 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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flammable Children[edit]

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

This page should be deleted it fails WP:NOTPLOT as it consists only of summary of the plot of a movie and WP:CRYSTAL as it is about an unreleased movie. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but overhaul. While the article is not of good quality, we need to judge if a topic is notable by sources in the world (not just in the Wikipedia article). Multiple sources have written about this film, which already began production. (We would generally avoid articles about films that have not yet started production since before then, they are more likely to be canceled.) This is reflected in WP:NFF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF, film is in post-production, a citation etc. has been added. — Sam Sailor 00:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is kept, it should be moved to Flammable Children. No need for disambiguation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Erik, there's no article at the base name Flammable Children. — Sam Sailor 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok, the film is not released yet and won't be for a while. Nevertheless, it's created quite a stir in media [2][3][4]. I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest easy pass of WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF and because it meets WP:GNG. Just because it hasn't been released doesn't mean the article isn't useful to readers. Laurdecl ^talk 01:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does meet the notability criteria for WP:NFF and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs considerable work, but films that are not yet released don't automatically meet the criteria for deletion just because of WP:CRYSTAL. The article still passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG and should therefore be kept. –Matthew - (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computational Graph[edit]

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

As discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Computational_Graph the very general definition of computational graph given here doesn't match the ones given in any of the sources. The author of this page seems to have created it to explore the concept as they and other people in this Hacker News here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13607634 see it. It is also described as a nascent field even though there's no evidence to suggest this, and plenty against (eg automata theory is ancient in Computer Science terms). In conclusion this article is inaccurate and misleading and I stand by the reasoning given in my original request for speedy deletion: the definition given here is something "just made up one day" in a Hacker News thread and then citations have been added retrospectively, rather than starting from a commonly accepted definition and working from that. Megajuice (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every combination of two words does not merit a Wikipedia article until it meets the notability guidelines, even if you can find one set of slides with it as a title. Certainly if it was, in fact, "nascent" then it would be WP:TOOSOON. But as above, it might also be talking about the general concept, in which case it would not have the second word capitalized. W Nowicki (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7/G11 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exlifo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:COI-issues Kleuske (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD'd A7/G11, which fits the bill, too. May be speedied. Kleuske (talk) 13:46, 12 February 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. Two things:

The English Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia have different ways of doing things. Here, canvassing is considered disruptive behavior and heavily discouraged. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
The issue here is notability. Reasonable minds can differ, but having weeded out the arguments that were blatantly not based on policy, the consensus of the participants (as opposed to the amount of words expressed) tilts heavily toward favoring deletion. Kurykh (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18C Mock-up[edit]

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

Training Aids of this type are very common and would not rate mention in an article never mind a stand-alone article, it has zero encyclopedic value. BilCat (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most airfields/airports have some sort of rescue/fire training rigs/training aids/simulators/old aircraft none of which are notable enough for a stand-alone article or even a mention in the related airfield/airport article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This type of Trainings aids are not com~mon. It is the only training aid documented who is such an exact copy of the real aircraft and has at the same time such diverse trainingsfeatures.. It is much more than just a mocke-up who only look like the aircraft. Other Moke-ups look like the real thing but contain not such featers, trainingsaids with diverse features are just trainingsriggs who desent look like the real thing it can not be commpared with very basic and simple frirefighting traingsriggs. So such a unique one is notable.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mock-up is a training device as you can find on every airport in the world. The encyclopaedic value is not more than that of a random fire truck of fire extinguisher. The Banner talk 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, The Banner, you are wrng, it is not the same like te firefighting trainingsrigg you finde nearly on every airport in the world, it is much complexer. Also its not like a random fire truck, it is a very unique trainingsmokeup .. at the moment no other such like this one exist.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill item found on many military aerodromes, no more notable than an individual firetruck, windsock or dumpster is. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to see that it is not just a look like of an aircraft and it is also not only a trainings rigg. you can finde trainingsrigg and you can finde mockeups on many military aerdromes, but not this combination of features.( And even if, then it would be worth to integrate this one on wikipedia).FFA P-16 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know it is clear from your above post you want this kept, you don't have to jump on everyone who posts a contrary opinion here, as it doesn't contribute to debate. - Ahunt (talk)

~~Delete~~ Keep. ~~There have been plenty of realistic mock-ups, even grounded airframes, pressed into service as training aids. Sorry, but there is no sign that this article can ever~~ Several sources listed under "External links" verify that it does pass our notability guidelines. They have just been put in the wrong place. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC) [Updated with change of vote 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)][reply]
I have now created a Bibliography for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep178.238.175.161 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC) — 178.238.175.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete It's as notable as the dust on my bookshelf. - ZLEA (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's unique and a very complex system that has nothing to do with those old planes or mock-ups that certain airports use to train their firefighters. --MBurch (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable third-party sources to support your claims, per WP:RS? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is a pretty large claim to make, it needs to be backed up with references and not just opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No,you Steelpillow and Ahunt know it is not possibel to bring references that something in this topic not exist. But iff something simelar (and I talking from simelar features, not just a look-like or a rough training rigg.. I talking from a trainings Mocke-up who excaly look like the real Aircraft and contains diveres trainingsfeatures and simulationsprogramms who can be checked and steered by the instructor in real time. If this exist in on so many airfield you will find easy a lot to show here.This here is not just a basic fire fighting trainingsrigg it is a complex simulator for diveres situations, it contains features who are also not build into old aircrafthulls who are used fur emercency trainings. And at least, just if somethinge is so common like a firefighting truck on an airfild it is still wort to be on wikipedia.. wikipeda is not only for extraodonarythings. even this F/A-18C Mocke-up page is online just a few days i has had a good bunch of visitors.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE are very clear. If there are no reliable sources then it does not belong on Wikipedia. Neither Ahunt nor I nor you can change that: each time one of us edits Wikipedia we agree to its terms of use. Now that you have admitted there are no good sources to be found, there is nothing more to be said here. If you wish to write about things outside Wikipedia's policies, there are plenty more web sites out there for you to use, that may well be your best option. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But in an articel about the F/A-18C Mocke-up have to be sources about the F/A-18C Mock-up (and they are all in the Aricel) and not sources about non existing Mock-ups with simear features. How should it be possibel to bring a referenc about something who did not exist? It is the other way much easier, if something simelar exist it could be proven witout a problem. And we have here on wikipedia a lot of articels about vehicels who where build in just one or two examples, just because such Mock-ups are less known or usualy not in the focus by the friends of aviation makes them not somthine who readers of wikipeda should not knew about. The Article fit perfect to the therms of wiikipedia because in german wikipedia it is even more detailed.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Nobody is asking for sources about insignificant mock-ups. The burden is on you to show that this one is notable. None that you have cited are reliable sources to its notability. The German article you mention is little different, even down to the sources cited. Maybe that needs deleting as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable references and external links in the articel already who show that it is notable. What is the problem with them? We have something from 20 Minuten , Blickand Tagesanzeiger. Thes some of the biggest newspaper and online news of switzerland, we have the aviatic Magazin of switzerland& Austria Cockpit, we hav a official Air force webpage about it, we have a branch report about the manufacturer in a non-aviatic branch magazin, we have a printet Magazin as referenc.. just to name a few all in this articel.. so much and it is not enough? In the one in the german wkipedia was clearly defined as worthwhile, as notable.It was very clearly decided NOT to delet it!FFA P-16 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I found them in the wrong place, under "external links", no wonder we all missed them. It just needs tidying up. Yes, there seems to be enough independent commentary to establish notability after all, so I am changing my vote accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do prove it exists but it really isnt notable even in the simulation world. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY requires only that something be adequately commented on in RS, it does not require professional endorsement (for example whether the subject is "unique" or "complex" is not relevant). A good few specialist journals have carried articles and news reports on this subject, i.e. it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is the core of WP:GNG. Sources which I have so far checked to confirm they carry non-trivial content include Cockpit, Seilbahnen International, AirOnline.nl and the Swiss Department of Defense web site. How many more do you want to be verified before you will accept it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The german one was nominated as "very readable article".And the english one should be thrown down the drain...,seriously?178.197.234.124 (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC) — 178.197.234.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I understand the comment was made in a deletion discussion so hardly "nominated". MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, failing a reason why why die Berne Zeitung or Blick should not be considered reliable sources for notability. (For those who cannot read German, "Nachbildung" = "replica" in the first article, "Denn es ist aus Holz" = "because it is made of wood" in the second, so it is indeed about the replica and not the original aircraft.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that they aren't reliable - but they do not constitute "in-depth coverage". YSSYguy (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "for notability". Answering below, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no clue why this article should be deleted. There are maybe some (minor!) points regarding the translation from de to de. But this is more a quality-problem than a question about "keep it or not". --M1712 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC) — M1712 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

FYI: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation as I do not believe that all keep-voters are genuine editors. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. The Banner talk 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ while the sockpuppetry issue needs to be explored, I'm satisfied it meets GNG. The Berne Zeitung and Blick articles mentioned above would constitute significant coverage as does this, to cite a third. We do have articles on Category:Individual aircraft, indeed, all kinds of Category:Individual physical objects. There's no reason that mockups can't be notable if they get sufficient coverage -- which this has, if perhaps barely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those three are nowhere near being "significant coverage", they are sets of photos with a bit of text serving as captions. The significant coverage is not independent, being from the Swiss military and a press release and brochure from the manufacturer; the independent coverage, while reliable, is not significant. Much of the material in the article is unreferenced and most likely pulled out of the creator's head as original research (for which he has a long track record) and it is all dressed up to appear greater than the sum of its parts. So for the record, my !vote is to delete. YSSYguy (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Seilbahn international and Cockpit are Independent and reliable sources providing enough detailed informations. Blick, 20Miunten Tagesanzeiger Prove the great public perception (this are the biggest newspapers in Switzerland and the two biggest newsportals in Switzerland. Also the berner Zeitung [5] is an and reliable sources providing enough detailed informations. We have here a good mix of first hand informations from the air Force and from the manufacturer as well as enough independent ones online.. and don't forget the printet ones, first hand and independent, like Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2017 Die "Manipulier"- Hornet (S.60 - 63.) AeroRevue, 7/8 2016, Page 8. al of them bring in also enough details who are needed.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold much store by the "look at the big thing in the road" trivia, no matter who publishes it. But the article also cites some much stronger sources, which I and FFA P-16 have both pointed out above here and which do constitute "significant coverage". Unfortunately, although the Cockpit download page] links to the cited issue, the download link appears to have failed since I read it a couple of days ago and I did not keep a copy. If anybody has any luck again, do let us know. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I drop in here Steelpillow, if I click on the link I can still reach it [6] (limitation for foreigen IP'? I don't knew).FFA P-16 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Not significant coverage" does not logically follows from sets of photos with a bit of text serving as captions - I would consider e.g. that making the cover of National Geographic (magazine) constitutes significant coverage even in the absence of accompanying text. Moreover, even if it could be argued against the Blick and Tagesanzeiger pieces (I have seen worse pass at AfD, but a reversal would please me), that is not the case of the Berne Zeitung one. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, YSSYguy makes a valid point about routine coverage, or as Steelpillow calls it, '"look at the big thing in the road" trivia' -- strikethrough my !vote. Change to neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this was about something that appeared on the cover of National Geographic I would say "keep" myself. But it didn't. The coverage is confined to Switzerland, it is local coverage, not widespread. The independent coverage is of a similar level to that generated in Australia when the RAAF's General Dynamics F-111s were retired and some were trucked to museums around the country, or when a de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou was moved by truck to a museum. The coverage amounts to less than what would appear in Australian media when a child drowns in a backyard swimming pool, or when there is a fatal car crash; and is a lot less than what would appear in Australian media after a fatal light aircraft crash - none of these would generate an article and nobody would think that they should. So why should something that has generated no attention outside Switzerland have a Wikipedia article in English about it, especially when there was a debate over whether the article should exist in one of Switzerland's official languages? Why should the Swiss military be covered in more detail than just about any other country's military forces, several of whom have similar mockups and training devices? YSSYguy (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it., if you compare this with a retired F-111. it is something differend. So you wan't to bann swiss topics from English Wikipedia,or how should we understand this' Wikipedia is not limited to countrys or language. I told you a few times already.. the English language Wikipedia is used by many readers too look up something who is not covered in the wiki of their language. (lets say a Russian friend who doesn't understand german wan't to knew about this F/A-18c Mock-up, will read it here because he don't understand german and in the Russian Wikipedia is nothing about it)."Why should the Swiss military be covered in more detail than just about any other country's military forces" is the wrong argument. If there are less informations about other military forces we don't have to restrict the informations about the swiss military... more all wikipedians should be encouraged to let grow the informations about other country's military forces. But you can not burden this on my shoulders to build up more infos about other country's military forces. And no there is no indication that other military forces have similar mockups, like we said here also a few times it is very complex system that has nothing to do with those old planes or mock-ups that certain airports use to train their firefighters. And just for the record the Discussion about it in de Wikipedia was started by a few anonym IP's. the main discussion was not if its notable or not, the main-discussion was what title/name it should have. It unfortunately makes the appearance that you not are against the article because the content, but because it is from me.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing claims of prejudice against Swiss topics and (elsewhere) "rassistic" - although I fail to see how a person of European descent can be racist against a European person - when people question 'your' articles are getting very tiresome, and you have misunderstood what I wrote. I am not comparing the mockup to an F-111 museum aircraft, I am comparing the coverage the moving of the F-111s by road received to the coverage the moving of the mockup by road received. At no time have I made any comparison of firefighting training aids to this mockup either, I am comparing this mockup to technical training aids, cockpit procedures trainers, engineering mockups etc., which are very commonplace. Why would anyone from Russia or Japan or wherever search for information about this mockup? Nobody outside Switzerland knows it even exists, because there has been no coverage outside Switzerland. I am not making any judgments of this article based on you being its creator or of its quality - you will notice that I have not entered the debate over the Air14 article you created, even though its quality is just as bad as the one we are discussing here; you know why? Because your bad English is not a reason to delete an article you created and can be fixed by other editors. My assessment of this article is based purely on the notability of the subject, which the subject does not possess. YSSYguy (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have wanted to limit the informations about the swiss military in English Wikipedia just in your comment above. I do not comment the other things now because we should stay straight to this why this article is to keep. Like you said bad English can be fixed by other editors. Therefore I would like to say thank you Steelpillow,Shawn in Montreal and Petebutt for your work. That it is notable is well documented how often have we to tell you it? Jahrespublikation der Luftwaffe, who everyone can buy at the newsstand or order. The 2 biggest online news portals of Switzerland the biggest printet newspapers in Switzerland. Seilbahnen International, AeroRevue and Cockpit are not limited to Switzerland only they are also available in Austria, Germany, Lichtenstein. This 100% prof that it is notable. Why would anyone from Russia or wherever search for information about this mockup' well because there are a lot of people outside of Switzerland who are interested in swiss military stuff, history equipment and so one. I have friends in Russia, Hungary, Italy and so one who doesn't speak german but are interested in such things. I am swiss but I am also interested in Russian airplanes and military equipment. in the Tankmuseum in Kubinka everything was written only in Russian not in English or german, so I used the English wikipeda to get some infos. Also you forgot that the F/A-18C Mock-up was shown to many vistors (also a lot of foreigen vistors (even guests from the USA) at the 75 years Meiringen Air Force Base show. Wikipedia is not limited to a language or anation, it is not a reason for deletion if the article is about something who is just part of a nation who has not English as it official language. And foreigen people noticed it :UK& NL .FFA P-16 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: When you reconsidered your vote, did you also take into account the more significant coverage in RS that I had mentioned earlier, before my "big thing" remark? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information: there was in de:wp in August 2016 a longer discussion about this topic ([7]). Determinend by administrative decision to keep. I know, this is not binding for other wiki-language-versions. Some arguments to delete the article in en:wp are similar, also some pro-arguments. I think, there are still some strong arguments to keep this article also in en:wp:

media coverage was/is given and referenced
originality issues of this mock-up are mentioned/described and 2nd-party referenced in the article

...and, as I understand the AfD-rules in en:wp correct, there is no reason stated to delete an article lack of "bad english" or "insufficient references". It is - in my opinion - more a question of quality-improvement (i.e. language, grammar a.s.o.) - and not deleting articles as "first action". (sorry for my clumsy english) --M1712 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, de-wp conclusions are not binding here. In that particular case, while I did not read the whole thing (my reading speed in German is 1/4 of that in English, at best, and that was a wall of text), I see no discussion whatsoever of the sources (which is the point of contention here at en-wp); most of the posts are either back-and-forth abuse or a debate between "it's useful, only deletionists would want to delete it" vs. "it's a mess, so it should go".

Moreover, and on a more formal point, MBurch and FFA-P16 commented on that discussion; I would object to a "double-counting" of their arguments (not implying it is the intent here). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? YSSYguy (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate article, e.g. List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. I was prepared to close this as "delete", but... well. The various argument-less "keep" votes can be safely ignored. The issue is whether there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The local news coverage of "oh look, cool, big thing moving on the highway" is so superficial that it can't be used as a basis for notability. The manufacturer's and the air force's material is not independent. But, surprisingly, there are two in-depth articles in trade journals about this specific mockup: Seilbahnen International p. 106 and Cockpit, p. 16. That's technically enough for an article, but the reality is that this individual piece of training equipment is such an insignificant part of the whole topic of the Swiss Air Force that to dedicate a whole article to it must look quite silly to readers, particularly when we don't even have an article about the service of the real F-/A 18 with the Swiss Air Force, about which there would be much more important things to relate (various crashes, procurement issues, politics, etc.) It should therefore be mentioned in an amount of detail proportionate to its significance in another article. (Conflict of interest notice: I have served as an officer in the Swiss armed forces.) Sandstein 08:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As info about the situation who led to this (soon two) F/A-18C Mock-up. The Swiss Air Force purchased 34 F/A-18, first it was planned to buy a second batch of 34 F/A-18, but this was never done. Also the idea to buy 12 F/A-18 more to replace the 12 Mirage IIIRS was not made. So the Swiss air Force was using 34 F/A-18 without having a QRA. The Swiss Air Force lost 4 F/A-18.. from the remaing 30 F/A-18 a minimum of 2 F/A-18 are since 2016 reserved for the QRA. So the F/A-18C Mock-up is an important tool part to ensuring the F/A-18 fleets readiness. Just because certain topics (for eg. Crash) are not (yet) listed in articles about the Swiss Air Force is no reason to prevent this article. No, every "keep" and every "delet" count.. some of the delet also have no substantiated reasons. so we should not change the rules for the Vote Counter. The BAZ [8] Is also a good independent source. FFA P-16 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have again not understand (or more you are not willing to understands it) The fleet readiness is just one point, and an answer to the question why this F/A-18C-Mock-up is as article in Wikipedia and we don't have a list of all air crashes of the swiss air force. No it is definitive not the same as a common firefighting trainingsrigg, also it is not just a nonfunctional Mock-up, all the things you count here are not the same. No there is no such a complex Mock-up in service by USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the Armée de l'air, the JASDF or other air arms. If there is one we can bring it to Wikipedia too, but this doesn't necessitate the deletion of this article. Again you are starting to agitate against Swiss Military topics, there is no limitation on Wikipedia about vehicels from one countrys orgine. If there are a few from Switzerland, everyone in the whole world can write about others from other nations. It is not important for Wikipedia if something is build in 10,000 copies or just 1 or even never was build Rockwell X-30. The sentence with a pen shows that it is not at all about the content, but you want to delete the article only because it is from me. BTW:Pen is also on wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into an article on either the manufacturer or the Swiss F/A-18s might be a good option if one of those articles existed. I cannot see any other article that would benefit from receiving this content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep F/A-18C Mock-up in my opinion is an interesting object and I ask not do delete. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Spurzem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is interesting, but being interesting does not make it notable. A steel training aid was manufactured for Sydney Airport; it replicated part of the fuselage and left wing of an Airbus A380 and was on a wheeled trolley. It would be towed into position at a gate at the international terminal that had two aerobridges to handle an A380, to allow people working at the terminal to practice docking aerobridges to the lower and upper decks. That was also interesting and that was also an important tool for the airport's readiness to bring the A380 into service. YSSYguy (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it is notable is already proved, how many times we have to tell you .[9], Cockpit, May 2013, Page 16.[10], Seilbahnen International 3 June 2013, pp. 106–7.[11] and so one? Like you say the "A380" you talk about is only part of the fuselage and left wing. we but we talk her about an full Mock-up with diffrend configurations and and a wide rang of functions. Also you are absolutely free to write about this "A380" on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why you have to jump on everyone who vote keep. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not free to write about the A380 training aid on Wikipedia, it isn't notable. And I don't see any reason why you have to make unfounded accusations of prejudice against Switzerland or your self every time somebody writes something you don't like. YSSYguy (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to write about the A380 training aid, if you think it isn't notable it is your decision, I never had , have and will put any stones in your way if you write an articel. If you an article about the A380 training aid would be not notable, it does not mean automatically that this is here the case too. Well you wrote it above, you criticzie that there are to much articels about swiss military topics. And this is not the first time you do this.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a training aid that is an important tool to aid in the fleet's readiness. How is that any different to all of the mockups, flight simulators, technical procedures trainers, maintenance training fixtures, computer-based training modules and other training aids used by the USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the Armée de l'air, the JASDF or other air arms or the world's airlines or the world's airports or by any company anywhere in the world that uses training aids...the pen I have in my pocket when I am at work is an important tool, I use it to sign paperwork to ensure the readiness of aircraft for service. Again and again you argue that somewhow everything related to the Swiss military is special. There are five articles on Wikipedia about specific aircraft tugs; two of them are about Swiss Air Force aircraft tugs. Wikipedia has six articles dealing with one Swiss tank and its various conversions for anti-aircraft, vehicle recovery, bridging etc. with a total production of 390 units; because according to you it has equal weight in the world as the M48 Patton with a production total of more than ten thousand and about which many books have been written. This not a vote count, so no, opinions with no reasons given do not actually matter. YSSYguy (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because you moved your commend I answer it here again::*You have again not understand (or more you are not willing to understands it) The fleet readiness is just one point, and an answer to the question why this F/A-18C-Mock-up is as article in Wikipedia and we don't have a list of all air crashes of the swiss air force. No it is definitive not the same as a common firefighting trainingsrigg, also it is not just a nonfunctional Mock-up, all the things you count here are not the same. No there is no such a complex Mock-up in service by USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the Armée de l'air, the JASDF or other air arms. If there is one we can bring it to Wikipedia too, but this doesn't necessitate the deletion of this article. Again you are starting to agitate against Swiss Military topics, there is no limitation on Wikipedia about vehicels from one countrys orgine. If there are a few from Switzerland, everyone in the whole world can write about others from other nations. It is not important for Wikipedia if something is build in 10,000 copies or just 1 or even never was build Rockwell X-30. The sentence with a pen shows that it is not at all about the content, but you want to delete the article only because it is from me. BTW:Pen is also on wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some information from Switzerland: The team in the sockpuppet-discussion has an tendency of using rules as a weapon against others – and forget them if it suits them fine. So there ist one thing to say about „coverage”. Firstly I don’t know if you understand Leserreporter as there is no corresponding article on enWiki. Leserreporter is mostly or only photos being sent to the press and them writing a few sentences. (user generated content) This is the case here for Tagesanzeiger, Blick and 20Minuten.

Now listen to MBurch additionally (never mind the difference- they have both spoken as "us" before of each other (just read all the links in the sockpuppet investigation):

"20 Minuten als Boulevardzeitung schon mal entfernt, völlig ungeeignet für eine Enzyklopädie --MBurch (Diskussion) 04:17, 30. Aug. 2014 (CEST)" (not suitable)
irony; "damit die internationale Medienpräsenz noch ein wenig grösser wird, muss jetzt auch noch das topseriöse 20 Minuten herhalten? Löschen! --MBurch (Diskussion) 22:35, 26. Aug" (reason for deletion)

How about Blick:

"Blick als Quelle für eine Enzyklopädie geht gar nicht. MBurch (Diskussion) 17:49, 11. Apr. 2015 (CEST)" (not suitable)
"… muss durch eine andere Quelle als den Blick belegt werden. --MBurch (Diskussion) 19:21, 11. Apr. 2015 (CEST)" (not suitable)
"und das ohne Blick als Quelle MBurch (Diskussion) 07:03, 21. Jul. 2015 (CEST)" (not suitable)
"Blick als Quelle entfernt (Boulevardmedium als Quellen geht gar nicht), MBurch (Diskussion) 06:50, 3. Aug. 2015 (CEST)"(not suitable, not discussion but removed content)

Within Switzerland remains therefore

Berner Zeitung (not really national) (article on invitation of the manufacturer but for me perfectly ok as regional news)
Cockpit national range for specific audience
Seilbahn national but specific range

So please erase all rerferences except Berner Zeitung, simagazin.com and Cockpit, as all the rest does not cover the subject as a subject. These three may remain with the Swiss Army communication. (not to mention the striking dutch webpage which is listed under „Bibliography")

Btw: Regarding this a votation, FFA is collecting users on deWP, eg spurzem. No worry, I won't do the same.

You decide yourself if you like the article. But if it comes to the "significant coverage" – you may have to forget it especially if you look for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as it says....--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:69CE:EB50:3352:79A8 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability of the subject, reliable sources do not need to cover the subject as a subject, they merely needs to comprise a significant body of content on the subject. The sources you list are not the only ones which do that. Then, other sources with less information may also be cited for additional information about a subject that is already notable. These also should not be deleted. Perhaps other language wikis do it differently, but this is what the English wikipedia does. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernrohr /Cronista IP, Sorry but 20Minutes and Blick are may not the best references but they are still good. And even without it, it does not matter if the Berner Zeitung is not a National or international Newspaper. With Seilbahn International and Cockpit we have it on the safe side. Even "first Hand" infos are regarded on englishwikipedia as notthe best sources, they are still usefull for the technical details.. and we have seen that it is also niticed outside switzerland. So thank you if you stop your war against MBurch.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a war against the two users mentioned but a user that feels being attacked because of his edits being critisized.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:7:7BE3:5233:15CA (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need any more "substantive debate"? The issue appears to hinge on whether the cited sources demonstrate notability, and I don't see anything new to be said there unless new sources are found. Personally, I'd suggest that a "no consensus" closure would be acceptable by now. (The ongoing sockpuppet head count is not relevant to that.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not relevant (besides that, FFA tries to get dewp-users to vote keep although they don't might have a substantiated opinion: link --79.249.168.132 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 79.249.168.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fernrhor / Cronista IP, buthere is not the place your hunt against MBurch (and aganst me since i prevented that you deleted the [12] writen by MBurch). Thank you. No it is relevant, so still "Keep", steelpillow brought it clearly down to the point.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just not notable as a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be changed so that it is no more a standing alone article, it can be linked with the Swiss Air Force page, the Inventorypage of the Swiss Air Force, and (Because of the X-5098) with the Payerne AFB. That it is notable is proved by the 20Minuten, Blick, Seilbahn International, Cockpit, Bernerzeitung Swiss Air Force Homepage and so on. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info :IP 79.249.168.132 is now blocked on german wikipedia because of editwar [13]

(yes, 79.249 (not me) was angry for FFA P-16 asking people explicitly to vote even if they hadn't a reason [14]). Read also FFA P-16's first of this even repeaded request with his explanation there about "deletion fanatics" and the "two types" that he claims "give him a hard time". Don't follow this litany: On deWiki kind of a standard with FFA P-16 to present himself as a victim of IP's and "bad intention users" instead of sticking to the facts and/or the state/deficiencies of the article discussed.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:7:7BE3:5233:15CA (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

continued as predicted: My edit [15] was correct for Wikipedia and a clear improvement of the article as the article now reverted in the version of FFA P-16 doesn't even mention the month it took place(!) (giving false impression as "mid-2014" would be July, not September). This is instantly and exactly fulfilling my prediction of being easily offended instead of improving an article. --2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:59C7:2F41:438D:9C80 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:59C7:2F41:438D:9C80 it is well known that Fernrohr is using differend Ip's and is hunting me and MBurch. from time to time he start todo a few usefull edits. This debat here is not about the Air14. But to get it clear I haven't changed it tomid-2014 this was a other user, and only September is also not right..it was august&September. Also even if you and the Banner don't like it Blick is one of the two importantest newsportals in Switzerland (and now I add 2 other interpendend refs). So lets Stay to the F/A-18C Mock-up. And here we have given enough references that it is notable. BTW If you log in it is easyser to communicate with you and it is much easyser to see that you are doing important things for Wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I do: where you wrote an essay about your own knowledge instead of looking for facts I corrected the worst false claims such as the first big show being held in 1994 where there was the first in 1991 and so on.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ho IP 2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 First.This here is about the F/A-18C Mock-up not about the Air14. Second you are Mixing up things like you did before. You bring in much smaller airshows organized by civilans and shows from the military with just one foreigen team or a few foreigen aircraft, they are all not the same like the big amount of foreigen Teams and aircraft on the Air94, air04 and definitive not matching the Air14.FFA P-16 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that material might be salvageable to be used as an example in Aircraft fire trainer, which is pretty weak. ApLundell (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is another source: Thomas Feuz; "Die Flugzeugbauer aus Seftigen" (The aircraft maker from Seftigen), Gantrichspost, Herbst 2016, p.13.[16]. Says (in German) that it is unique and has gained international recognition.. This would seem to boost its notability and weaken several of the "delete" rationales given to date. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note comment below for Gantrischpost...--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- It is the canvassing for editors on the German Wikipedia to protect this article that weakens the keep-votes, especially from German colleagues. The Banner talk 10:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The AfD closer is expected to make their assessment based on the quality of arguments presented, not on their quantity. Canvassing is a behavioural issue not a quality issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Since none bothered to do so, I warned FFA P-16 for canvassing, to which they answered that they were unaware of that rule. I could not confirm or infirm their claim that canvassing is forbidden on de-wp, so I would WP:AGF that this was indeed a good-faith mistake. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knew that firsthand references and youtube are not seen as legitim sources in English Wikipedia. But to show in this discussion that the F/A-18c Mock-up is noticed by many people just for information: It was presentet to 30000 Vistors<ref>[17] at the "75 Jahre Militärflugplatz Meiringen" airshow, at the Trainings day on Friday and the two show days at the weekend (see clip from 4:45 to 7:02) [18].. Even Russians know it now [19].FFA P-16 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great example; Ok, it is a bit better than this, that mentioned Gantrischpost. "This would seem to boost its notability" - great sentence, great argument! But: Such a local promotional letter for the region, distributed for free - four times a year - this is a suitable source to claim international recognition (which it even doesn't because the claim is made by the builder)?--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the international claim. Note that I carefully avoided saying it "established" notability, but it's still another drop in the bucket and strengthens the sources which I have already suggested do establish notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally spoken; NOT convincing tactics to spread sources twice as reference and bibliography - and those references that I mentioned (1,4,5,6,7,10,11) are really worse than just poor, just as the dutch bibliography entry.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Dallas Dance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly promotional resume-style article. Sure, he gets a few mentions in the paper, but that's to be expected given his position. The position, as far as I know, in no way guarantees inherent nobility on Wikipedia, and I see no reason to accept that this particular is notable via the GNG or otherwise; all the coverage is just about a man doing his job, no in-depth discussion that makes him notable. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this had been nominated before; I am not at all convinced that the coverage brought up there makes him notable. Being interviewed in a documentary is not in-depth discussion though it may point at some kind of notability--and being appointed to an advisory committee is, I'm sorry to say, not as special as one might think. I note also that (in response to NinjaRobotPirate) yes, the Baltimore Sun is a good paper of national standing, but not of national distribution, and that the coverage of Dance in that paper is of the regional kind. (Lots of folks get recognized by the president; it takes national coverage to really make that newsworthy.) Same with links posted there by Jreferee: I see three links to newspaper articles, and those are all papers from the area--in other words, it's routine coverage, as is suggested in comments by John from Idegon, Onel5969, RoySmith, Cullen328 (I think I pinged everyone from the first AfD). Oh, and I know there was a tweet last year that generated some minor coverage, but that also doesn't convince me. Everyone tweets, and retweets, and gets criticized, and on and on. Well, everyone except Cullen, who can't tweet from his rotary phone. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No importance,promotional,Many superedents in the world doings works world wide,it is not the dircctory for superendents,strongly suggesting delete (Kalidas100 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC))>[reply]
Keep -
He's not really a politician, he's a notable school district superintendent who has been personally recognized by the President of the United States and is consistently on Baltimore news sources. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 18:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's some more sources: [20] from American School & University (but I lost my access to Highbeam and can't read it), [21] from Education Week, [22] from The Washington Post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article with no use ,for author and viewers ,speedy is better option (Jetflightusa (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) — Jetflightusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Jetflightusa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Nsmutte (talk • contribs). – Note: Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — Sam Sailor 22:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jetflightusa I don't think this article meets any CSD criteria. CatcherStorm ^talk 19:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:CatcherStorm, at the risk of being redundant, you are absolutely correct: speedy would be incredibly inappropriate here. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources have been found, there is a reason the first discussion ended in a keep. The person has been personally appointed by Barack Obama. For reference here are Jreferee's references that he provided from the previous AfD, which was closed as keep.

Students deserve equity \ S. Dallas Dance: 'We cannot let demographics continue to predict our students' performance
S. Dallas Dance appointed to federal commission on African American education
ISTE board member S. Dallas Dance named “20 to Watch” honoree by the National School Boards Association
Baltimore County selects Dance as next school superintendent
S. Dallas Dance recognized by President Obama as "Champion of Change"
New Principal 'Very Blessed' At 24, Dance Named To Oversee Henrico's Brookland Middle. Richmond Times Dispatch July 15, 2005

Non notable people do not get recognized by the President of the United States. CatcherStorm ^talk 19:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These posts were made by socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte

Keep Good article(Bajarebajare (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
KeepGood article(Zyxwvutsrr (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bajarebajare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxwvutsrr (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NPOL. And yes he's a politician, not being an elected politician doesn't mean he's not a politician. Not a single source provided above speaks to notability except perhaps the Sun. The Sun is local, ITSE is not independent, no indication districtadministration is a reliable source (trade association publications generally aren't), the thing from highbeam is a press release. Can't make any analysis of the Richmond paper reference, but I do not see any discussion in detail in reliable sources totally independent of the subject that is needed here. And the contention that being mentioned by the President equates to inherent notability is laughable. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd also add that the same user voting twice using different signatures, coupled with all the sock votes screams WP:PAID. I've struck CatcherStorm's second vote and I believe some explanation is needed for that behavior. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: @John from Idegon: I would like to just mention here that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a place for asserting your views as absolutes unless you provide merit for those views. For example, you have enthusiastically engaged Catcher with saying “And the contention that being mentioned by the President equates to inherent notability is laughable.” To who is it laughable and do you have consensus for this notion? You have then gone onto attacking Catcher by saying “And I'd also add that the same user voting twice using different signatures, coupled with all the sock votes screams WP:PAID” this is a serious accusation and should at the least be merited in the behaviour of the person who you are attacking with it. It might be worth remembering that Wikipedia is a place with many different views and just because others might not share your own it does not give you leave to start going out of your way to invalidate the opinion of others. This type of carry-on leads inevitably, as proven here, to one making rash and non-objective decisions based on dogma rather than actual facts. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 11:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Paul August ☎ 16:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, you are gravely mistaken. The second vote you are referring to with the two different signatures was from a quote that WikiCoffee used. WikiCoffee quoted my previous comment from the first nomination when I had a different signature. I think that having been here for three years I would know the rules of ASD. I did not vote using two different signatures. Please look back at what I am referring to, for I do not wish to have false action taken against me. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul August, inquiring minds want to know about notability... Drmies (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, like beauty, is in the eye of the heholder. Paul August ☎ 12:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable source coverage is routine and limited in scope to the Baltimore area. The "nominated by the president" bit is just a naming to the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans (this doesn't count a s a source since it's a press release) committee, 1 out of 25. TheValeyard (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see nothing notable in this article. This is a County Schools superintendent. Probably does an excellent job, but not notable by Wikipedia's rules. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While seeming like a very notable school superintendent and individual (meant sincerely), I don't see WP:NOTABILITY being met enough to merit a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cases like this are a little vague because, while the position this person holds is "important", it is by nature "local" and not notable per se. In doing some perusing, it seems we generally do not have articles on superintendents of large districts, even when mentioned by name, except in cases like Barbara Byrd-Bennett when there's notability/notoriety for additional reasons. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Evidence of notability lacking. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 15 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Williams (basketball)[edit]

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

Streetballer who is sporadically mentioned in non-notable endeavors. The article fails to display a sign of notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussions in ESPN are enough to establish notability under gng. While the article is not that great, in and of itself, there is plenty of coverage in very diverse sources to merit an article. Jacona (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona did you actually read the sources? Almost all of them are trivial and few if any of them exclusively talk about him. He is a street baller; he needs a lot toward GNG that note notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the sources provided, and many, many more. While many are trivial, some (such as the "25 greatest" articles) provide significant coverage. I am not aware of any policy requiring sources to talk exclusively about a subject to make it notable. Please point me to that, if you have time. Jacona (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona I guess we have different ideas of what significant coverage is. To me it's beyond a couple sentences in an article with multiple personalities and paragraphs. To me, it has something significant to offer about the subject, not just that he played in junior college or how he has a cool nickname. But that's just me I guess.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't describe the articles I read. Perhaps you should read them again. Jacona (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Jacona looks like I need to hold your hand through each source. Bleacher Report: A highlight reel video. ESPN top 25: Junior college player, played at Rucker Park, cool nickname and confidence. USA Today: crosses a child out of his shoes. Complex.com: Nomadic player, Ruckers park, confident. BusinessWire: A challenge against players that never happened. ESPN2: He came to New York City (two sentences). I think I made my point, I'm done with you. If you want to pretend it's notable, fine by me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[23] does it for me. [24] [25]. [26] Haters gonna hate. Jacona (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As TheGracefulSlick points out, the standard for WP:GNG is significant independent coverage and none of the cited sources remotely qualify. Nothing in WP:NHOOPS applies, either.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. How the minor characters will be handled in the list is a content decision. If, after discussion, they aren't added to the list and show no potential use, they can be brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. czar 02:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Adama[edit]

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

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

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

Non notable character, if not one of the least notable character to have it's own Wikipedia page and this is not BSG Wiki. Not to mention that this is also unsourced and do not indicate notability. Cylon B (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who created the article and even now I don't believe it's noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete it. Smeggysmeg (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smeggysmeg: Per the content of your !vote, it appears that you may only be referring to the Zak Adama article. Is this the case? Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - some interesting info here, just not worthy of its own article. Merge into William Adama#Personality and relationships and redirect.Timtempleton (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtempleton: Per the content of your !vote, it appears that you may only be referring to the Zak Adama article. Is this the case? Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Northamerica1000, your assumption is correct. Not sure how I missed that. Based on the role of each, my vote is still merge for Adama, and keep for the other two.Timtempleton (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as once again the nominator has managed to mass-nominate clearly notable fictional elements (each 'find sources' book link leads to at least two independent, non-trivial RS's. Each of them!) in what can most charitably be described as a misguided attempt to use deletion as cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Zak Adama as per Timtempleton; Delete the other two as non-notable. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this alone, of Cylon B's multiple-character nominations, has not yet been closed as "nominate them all individually because this isn't a good way to tackle the problem" There's no question that these four different characters from the same fictional franchise have differing notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Jclemens that these characters warrant individual attention. I recommend that this debate be closed as no consensus with a recommendation that the articles be nominated separately. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Why go through this three times? These are all minor characters. Zak is the strongest of the bunch, and you can't inherit notability from your fictional brother and father. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless someone can provide sourcing convincing enough to show that they may merit individual attention. Notability needs to be established if individual articles are to exist. TTN (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - All three are extremely minor fictional characters. As said above, Zak is the only one that can even come close to making any claim of notability, but even he fails to gather any reliable sources. The sources brought up when doing the searches for the characters are only one to two sentence mentions that are only in the context of plot summary, which makes theme extremely trivial and not suitable for establishing notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the above three delete !votes 1) Fail to address the non-trivial independent, reliable sourcing I identified earlier in the AfD, 2) fail to address why a merge or redirect are not appropriate options per WP:ATD. In TTN's case, this is clearly a willfully disruptive action, as he knows full well how merges of not independently notable content works, since he's done it himself in other franchises. I'll further note that the nominator is, and remains, a WP:SPA with no edits other than to try and delete, trim, or merge Battlestar Galactica content in the past month. Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think minor characters such as this is notable enough to have their own page. How is this "clearly a willfully disruptive action" when I'm doing this for the interest of Wikipedia. Cylon B (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not TTN, so I'm not calling your actions willfully disruptive: you're either a clueless newbie SPA or a sockpuppet behaving like a clueless newbie SPA. "Minor" is unimportant; many minor things can be notable, as all of these characters appear to be to me. Please explain the GNG to me and how it applies to fictional characters: Not that I need to know it, but you really ought to be able to articulate it before you go around trying to 'improve' Wikipedia by deleting others' content. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address concerns raised by Jclemens, that delete !voters might have overlooked WP:ATD So Why 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters, that's the best way to handle all these minor characters. Also avoids creating a clickbait redlink. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Not notable characters. Needs multiple, strong sources suggesting notability. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. These are minor characters; standalone articles border on cruft. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this, but the close appears to contentious. Rather than get this dragged through DRV, I've just backed out my close and am relisting it for some other admin to come along and close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Zak Adama into William Adama#Personality and relationships and redirect. Link from List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Rakerman (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. I would say Merge but there're no refs. You can merge it if you prefer. Why is this even being kept open? There was one Keep vote and that back during the Obama Administration for chrissakes. It's not a popular article. Herostratus (talk) 02:05, 20 February 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 Bouncing ball. Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing ball dynamics[edit]

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

While an article could be written on the dynamics of bouncing ball (I actually intended to start a draft on this), this article really is about the super specific case of ball bouncing on a sinusoidally driven table, and it's more or less highjacking the legitimate article. All the publications come from Tufillaro and affiliates, and I suspect this article was written by one of them. So basically I'm invoking WP:PROMO/WP:OR and WP:TNT on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to Headbomb's article on the physics of a bouncing ball when it appears in mainspace. The current brief article has changed topic twice, starting out as "Bouncing Ball Simulation System" for the Mac. In any case it doesn't cover the topic. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Headbomb's impressive opus when finished. Delete in the meantime, I guess; seems hijack-ey and promotional. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems to want to clear the way for a rival draft and this obviously violates WP:OWN. If the nominator feels they can do better then they are free to amend the page in situ using ordinary editing. The case of the sinusoidally-driven table appears in numerous sources, including Vibro-impact dynamics; Applied Non-Linear Dynamical Systems; Nonlinear Dynamics in Engineering Systems; Chaotic Systems. Our editing policy is to preserve successive drafts, not to delete rivals in order to drive them off. Andrew D. (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is correct, and the new material should be added into/over this rather than deletion and recreation. What's already there might make part of a subsection.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: I'm not agreeing with the various insinuations above, but with the suggestion that the current article location be repurposed rather than deleted & recreated.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't speculate on my motives and assumed bad faith from the outset. If you feel this is notable, fine, but as far as the topic of bouncing ball dynamics go, this article doesn't cover it. If you think this is worth saving and refocused on whatever the actual topic is supposed to be, moving the page to a different more accurate name can be done. But leave accusations of WP:OWNership out of it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the rival draft is now in mainspace. It seems that some other page was deleted to make way for it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No other page was deleted, actually, only a redirect left over from the page move of Bouncing ball (music). -- 120.17.99.113 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the now-existing and more comprehensive bouncing ball, and merge whatever may be appropriate from the history of this article. Sandstein 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bouncing ball per Sandstein, and merge the 15 words of referenced content. -- 120.17.62.166 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Yazdani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough reliable sources yet. Brojam (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brojam. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deletion is just. There are more than enough reliable sources posted. Including news coverage of his role on the series. I think this is a personal and biast call to action as GSS-1987 has deleted his page in the past. Furthermore, why are only the ethnic actors being targeted?! arefmahabadi (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2017

Please assume good faith. There is no reason to make claims of targeting ethnic actors nor to assume the AfD is personal. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I just fail to see the lack of adequate sourcing. I have used multiple and proven this actor is credible and has numerous secondary reliable sources arefmahabadi (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2017

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Sharma Kaintura[edit]

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

No indication that the subject meets the notability criteria at WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. VQuakr (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "seasoned marketing communications professional" self-published a book a few weeks ago, to no apparent notice at all. There is no substantial coverage from independent reliable sources of the book or the author. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S5000F - International specification for in-service data feedback[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG TheMagikCow (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, as well as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 09:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is hard to figure out what the article is about. I think it might be some kind of European military equipment standard? Far too detailed to merit an article in a general encyclopedia, and is not titled in our normal way. A better case could be made for S-Series of ILS specifications but that one needs help too, to be written in normal English instead of government contractorish. No need to merge or redirect. W Nowicki (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsure what the article is about - looks like some kind of protocol for something but is incomprehensible. DrStrauss talk 10:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and reads like an information sheet. Kierzek (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic New Zealanders[edit]

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

Only WP:ROUTINE coverage, with nothing of any particular notability here. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm working on the article. It might take a while due to other commitments but I will be expanding the article. Dash9Z (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I suggest the article be redirected to European New Zealanders? I haven't had much time to work on the article and redirecting while I work on it won't delete the edit history. Dash9Z (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete 120 people in a population of 4.7 million is hardly noteworthy. is there evidence these people together meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a series of these articles, such as Finnish New Zealanders, and they should all be considered for deletion or a merger. Mattlore (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - combining two random attributes does not make for notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I agree with Cordless Larry - all of these articles fail WP:GNG and should be deleted. DrStrauss talk 10:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Russian, Italian, German, Danish and Swedish -New Zealanders all have their own individual AfD pages for the same reason. DrStrauss talk 16:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. they are all bigger communities. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage from reliable sources Spiderone 11:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ Redirect and merge into Scandinavian New Zealanders – Far off from meeting GNG. J 947 04:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant enough to pass WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ali (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mohammed Ali (programmer)

Articles for deletion/Mohammed Ali (entrepreneur)

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

No indication of passing notability. The subject was in the news only for one event and the sources appear to be multiple versions of the same press release material. This appears to be a case of G5 and an autobiography per this comment and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I've also nominated the following article on the website he founded as I don't think it meets WP:GNG and WP:WEBSITE.

WeNeed1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GSS (talk|c|em) 08:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 16-year-old entrepreneurs are almost never notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 19 February 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. No prejudice to continuing discussion on whether to move/rename the article, but the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worst railway accidents in Australia[edit]

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

There are already comprehensive lists at Railway accidents in Victoria, Railway accidents in New South Wales, and so on for each Australian state. This article is unsourced, does not make any claim to its own notability, and is essentially a badly organised formatted duplication of existing content. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and prune down to a short list. Since comprehensive articles exist for each state, there should be a list article for Australia as a whole that readers can use for navigation. Either Railway accidents in Australia or List of railway accidents in Australia sounds like a logical choice for me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I have formatted the list that was provided at the start of the article (and added Queensland). My idea is that everything that follows the list of links should be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move Keep and rename. List of / Railway accidents in Australia is a useful and likely search term. List of list articles do not necessarily need references and GNG is not relevant. Could also still have a summary still to the worst accidents. 23:31, 6 February 2017‎ Aoziwe (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Once the discussion is closed I'll prune the list to the worst 5-10 and move to an appropriate page. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, "worst 5-10" is not a good idea. You then need to decide how bad something must be to be in the list. Maintenance will be required as people try to add other events to the list. It is unnecessary trouble. So a simple list that provides links to the state lists is sufficient. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move and rename as the current title and content fails WP:LISTCRITERIA due to the subjective nature of "worst" in the selection criteria. As a list of lists, it could be edited to be appropriate, but that requires stripping out almost everything but the blue links. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the AFD outcome to take, for when keeping it is the consensus as here, with agreement that moving/renaming is reasonable too. --do ncr am 18:39, 13 February 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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renuka Ramnath[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNG.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. Lourdes 07:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. I have removed the promotional material. — Yash^talk stalk 08:42, 14 February 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 TRAI. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SaveTheInternet.in[edit]

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

Just an advertisement with hardly any sources talking about the website only social media links mention it. Most contributions have been made by SPAs who edited no other articles.[36][37] D4iNa4 (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unfair to have page on the website that is significantly unpopular and contains no mention in reliable sources. Those social networking pages are not notable either that have mentioned the website. Rzvas (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the topic has received some coverage in reliable sources. See this article from Firstpost and this article from The Economic Times for starters. I have not researched the overall notability of lack thereof of the topic at this time to post an !vote, but relisting the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I change vote to redirect to TRAI. Rzvas (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Doesn't seem sufficiently notable for retention and article is massively puffed up. Redirect to TRAI. Inlinetext (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Strausser[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography created by User:Dstrausser83, fails WP:BIO; PROD removed by creator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PROD was removed by creator AFTER NorthBySouthBaranof said on my talk page that I could. Also, this is NOT an autobiography. I am a relative, not him. The complaining editor is failing to realize the historic plight that David Strausser had to take for civil rights in Mexico, becoming the FIRST WHITE, non-latino, non-hispanic Binational Adviser to the Mexican Government allowed to represent the country to the press, both foreign and national. This is huge in a country like Mexico that is primarily one raze and ethnicity and was extremely rare and a huge accomplishment for the furthering of minority rights in Mexico. This article is short and well cited and ads to the value of Wikipedia. Dstrausser83 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The user has the same first initial and last name as the article subject, the numbers "83" in their username correspond to the stated birthdate of the article subject and on their user talk page, they stated that they were a student at Penn State University, the article subject's stated alma mater. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The keyboard activist does not realize that "D" can represent various names and are used for more than just David. Being as we are both from Pennsylvania and family, would it be possible, that we both went to the same University? Can you wrap your head around that before falling off the turnip truck? We are not talking about a small local school, but a top notch, world known University that many people attend, especially from the same FAMILY. That being said, again, I am a relative, with the initials of "D.S.". The 83 in my name is from the year I was born, as in 1983. My name? Believe it or not, it is Daniel. That means my full name is Daniel Strausser and I have followed my cousin throughout his career and I have been a center piece in motivating him and pushing him to reach places I have not because of my disability and he has taken me as his wing man along his plight. I will also tell you, there are 9 David Strausser (including my Uncle, his father), in fact, do a Google Search and you will find TWO different David Straussers from Pennsylvania that were born in May 1983. There are also 4 Daniel Straussers. Since you want to know so much about our family tree, would you also care for a copy of my identification? I will gladly send you that for all to see as long as I would get an apology after I send it for the false accusations. Also, instead of worrying who I am, how about you focus on the merit of the article and the historic achievements that were completed? That is what this is supposed to be about, right? Or did Wikipedia just loathe down to personal attacks and since you do not like somebody you are going to nominate it for deletion even after you were engaged for discussion about it to resolve any issues? David Strausser is a current civil rights and equality leader in Mexico that achieved the highest ranks of a non-Mexican, non-Latino in government and the founder of a ground-breaking charity that has won awards and is quite well known in Latin America and the tech world, I must ask you, besides your dislike for my cousin, is there any other reason he does not qualify? There are a ton of articles of civil rights leaders that have done what he has done or less and they all have their respective page. Please, instead of your personal attacks, please ask discuss the merit of the article and the accomplishments and references showing such. Dstrausser83 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Except for some grammer, article seems relevant to me. Jackedhammer (talk) — Jackedhammer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Subject fails notability test, creator is admitted WP:COI. An advisor to a state government Secretary for Tourism is not notable, even if he is a privileged white American male. Even if kept, this should be moved to userspace as a draft and submitted for independent review prior to creation as an article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Despite racist comments about this gent fighting for rights in another country, seems legit. Good references. I have seen much worse wikipedia pages with lesser importance stay here on Wikipedia. People really know how to pick a fight Seems like people with a beef have a political reason as to why they wish to delete, not a Wikipedia reason and are stretching the rules for their point of view. I fixed the page. ZerHeimer (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC) — ZerHeimer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNG not met. Sockpuppet antics are not indicative of a good-faith editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germain Bebe[edit]

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

Article previously deleted via PROD in November. Non-notable local young professional. All coverage is local, and this article is largely promotional. Wikipedia is not a collection of 40 under 40s. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. I think there are enough sources. CaseeArt ^Talk 06:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the head of a local chamber of commerce? The coverage he receives is routine and would be expected of someone in a similar position in local sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable businessman, the strongest claim to notability being "He is also known for being the youngest to hold the position of CEO for North Miami Chamber of Commerce" (??). Barely enough for local interest, but insufficient for an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrijana Krasniqi[edit]

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

Non-notable musician only famous for one event. She didn't qualify any further in Melodifestivalen and placed at the bottom of the scoreboard. Creating articles for every single contestant is absurd, and should be reserved for only the ones who're successful/have chart success with their songs. The article is weak as well as pretty much the only information there is about her has to do with Melodifestivalen. In the coming weeks, if Krasniqi experiences chart success with her song, then I'd say to recreate it, but for now I'd redirect to Melodifestivalen 2017. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:MUSIC second paragraph her music single has charted in the main Swedish chart. And it is sourced. Has particiated in Melodifestivalen. Has released previous music. Article has good third party sources. She signed with one of the worlds largest record labels well before participating in Melodifestivalen so obviously not only known for the festival, she also passes Paragraph 12 of WP:MUSIC --BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her song has peaked in the chart since this AfD was initiated. It is sourced as well. Plus added international sources from both English and Albanian media. Obvious Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melodifestivalen 2017 is a sensible solution. Article as it currently stands does not have good, third party sources. Both sources are from SVT, and they are the sort of short articles any national TV broadcaster writes on song contest participants. Searching for sources I do not find anything that makes subject meet WP:BASIC. She is signed to Universal, but she has not yet released an album, and is not yet notable under any criterion in WP:MUSICBIO. No objections to a rewrite if and when her career takes off. — Sam Sailor 00:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her song has peaked in the Swedish chart since this AfD was initiated and this !vote. It is sourced as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that entering the chart at #62 exactly is "peaking". — Sam Sailor 22:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a song enters a chart it peaks as Ss112 writes in his edit summaries. In week 1, it can peak again if it places even higher in week 2. But that is simply an expression. The main point being, she has music that has entered her countries main Chart list. She passes both paragraph 2 and 12 of WP:MUSIC. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: She's hit the charts, per BabbaQ, that meets the threshold for notability. Montanabw^(talk) 11:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:MUSIC, as well as for the fact that she was a contestant in a major festival and that her songs have ranked in at least one major music chart in Sweden. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a charting artist signed with a majour label Universal Sweden. werldwayd (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin K[edit]

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

Nominating because of the following discussion: Talk:Martin K#Notability etc

Fails WP:GNG. The unsourced claim about Golden Disk Award may or may not push it above WP:MUSICBIO, if true. (Calling it "a Korean Grammy-award" is very misleading, though, as there is no relationship whatsoever.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is a Korean "award" which I am unable to verify and the award doesn't appear to be notable either. Theroadislong (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toneshifterz[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources provided are primarily social media, I could not locate additional reliable sources. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lot out there, and this person looks as though they should be notable, but I cannot find anything like IRSS to support it. I found one interview - which is really a primary, and some introparas on several sites which were very basic and all identical. Aoziwe (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. no notable albums nor notable awards. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karinkuzhi[edit]

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

No evidence that this village exists, this article has existed since 2006 and is unsourced, there aren't even coordinates. Nothing on Google/Bing Maps, OpenStreetMap etc. A search for this name returns (apart from Wikipedia mirrors) the name of a person and not that of a place. This is one of the longest running hoaxes in the history of the encyclopedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a road called Karinkuzhi Road, and it is indeed, as this article claims, just north of a couple of places called Echilamvayal (the article is by the same author), but as far as I can tell it is just a road. I can't find anything that establishes this an an entire village. Adam9007 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax. Oh dear. Spiderone 11:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Karikuzhi, possibly related. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously hoax.cann't found any evidence and no reference.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Richardson (magician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Cannot find any reviews or reports on his act or any articles about his accomplishments. No real claims of notability Rogermx (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koppal Airport[edit]

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

This is a small private airport with no scheduled services, nor does it appear this airport has ever had any. The only sources I can find are government ones that merely acknowledge the airport's existence and provide basic information like the coordinates and acreage. Example and example. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm no deletionist, but I know notable from non-notable. - ZLEA (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NAIRPORT Spiderone 11:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NAIRPORT.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shesaro[edit]

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

Article is filled with WP:OR (Ex: "Team Shesaro and Cearmus", made-up double finishers) and is an obvious (and lazy) copy/paste of both the Cesaro and Sheamus articles. Alongside much of the info being false, the team of Cesaro and Sheamus haven't been as notable to have an article. Their reign as champions only lasted 42 days and they haven't been an official team for that long at all, so I feel WP:TOOSOON also applies very well. Sekyaw (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sekyaw (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another one where the individual members are notable but as a team they are not, appropriate to cover as a section in their respective articles, not a seperate one. MPJ-DK 11:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. DrStrauss talk 12:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable even if they were tag team champions and it fails WP:GNG. Nickag989^talk 18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block creator Sounds drastic, I know. But this guy's edits have mostly been bad page moves, bad image uploads, copyright violations and bad article creations. They haven't caught on despite multiple warnings.LM2000 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block creator as above. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StylesClash18.LM2000 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Nikki♥311 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Martin (martial artist)[edit]

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

There is litterally nothing here that demonstrates notability in any Wikipedia related way, and on top of that the article's one reference (if it can be called a reference) is to a website whose history with Wikipedia is questionable at best. I am listing the article for deletion, although I'm open to a community ruling in favor of speedy deletion (A7/G11) or a move to the draft space for improvements. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lot's of worked with - notability is not inherited.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage of him from reliable sources. I also don't see anything that shows he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Claims of notability come from his teachers or people he worked with, but notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:Actor.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Jah[edit]

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

Astroturfing by sockpuppets. Non-notable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems the creator of the article is on Wikipedia solely for promotional reasons. This article like the others, fail GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article has not been discussed significantly in reliable independent sources. I was able to find coverage of him in the Vanguard. He also received coverage for reportedly leading a campaign against the arrest and imprisonment of marijuana smokers in Nigeria. However, these sources are not enough to establish notability, especially when you consider the newspaper describing him as a "rising reggae star". The subject may be notable in the near future, but that doesn't mean he deserves to have a stand-alone article about him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celinto Catayente Towers[edit]

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

A phony building (phony even within the context of the film) mentioned once in the film There's Something About Mary. It was a passing mention, of no import to the plot, not worthy of a redirect, especially since it isn't mentioned in the article about the film. Largoplazo (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's hard to fathom how this utterly trivial fictional element a) was thought by someone to merit an article and b) has existed for years as such. It's a shame we don't have a speedy deletion template for fictional elements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir N. Drozdoff[edit]

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

Does not meet notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Also written in a way which sounds highly not neutral (for example, had a "reviews" section acclaiming the artist until it was removed by me). NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. The New York Times obituary appears to have been a paid placement, which doesn't count towards notability, and the Drozdoff Society site has no meaningful content. A Google search found very little info. I'm open to being persuaded, but I was unable to find evidence of his notability myself. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 12 February 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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution[edit]

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

Page does not cite any sources and the book doesn't meet WP:NB criteria. Redhat101 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sergey Bubka of NBOOK.^{[38][39][40][41][42][43]} Essential reading in multiple universities too.^{[44][45][46][47]}. Lourdes 03:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Lourdes demonstrates that there's easily enough critical coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per the WP:BEFORE search by Lourdes. Specific examples from the list above include reviews from Kirkus, The Journal of Politics and Middle Eastern Studies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not think we can have an article on every academic book published, however well reviewed. Furthermore, all we have is a rather useless stub. In deference to those who have voted above, I am not voting delete, but if we are to keep it we need, we need a lot more about the book's argument. Currnetly iit is not even an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd comment: it's good that "it is not even an ADVERT." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:NOTPAPER. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - It looks like a book with multiple independent reliable source reviews. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was and still is a stub, but stubs for notable works can always be expanded. The only time I'd argue that a work shouldn't have its own entry is if the work is already well covered in the creator's article (as in the case of biographies or authors known for only one work where the work and author haven't been the subject of a lot of coverage outside of each other) or in another suitable location. (IE, in the case of derivative works where it's substantially identical to the main work and wouldn't justify a content fork, as in the case where a coloring book edition is put out of a children's book) In this case the article can be expanded and I've gotten a little bit of it started. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, numerous reviews available online as listed above, in addition, Ebsco lists reviews in The New Yorker, America, and Harvard International Review, and this shows it was reviewed in Iranian Studies. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 16 February 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 Kent State shootings. A bit WP:BOLD here, but I believe this is better than dragging this out for another week. Kurykh (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Canfora[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT - this person was injured in the Kent State shootings and is otherwise non-notable. Article is almost entirely about Kent State Shootings, not about Canfora. Adpete (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not rise to more than one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: on reflection, it might be better turning it into a redirect to Kent State shootings. Canfora still occasionally turns up in news articles about the shootings (as can be seen by clicking "news" above). But I still don't see anything independently notable about him to warrant a separate article. I guess no special action is required for that - I'd just maybe withdraw the nomination and turn it into a redirect Adpete. (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion should indicate whether redirection to Kent State shootings is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (nominator). Canfora is in quite a few mainstream news items on the shooting, e.g. USA Today, Huffington Post, New York Times, BBC. As I said above, my assessment is he's not independently notable (and there's almost nothing to say about him except in relation to the shootings), but he seems to do a lot of work commemorating the event. e.g. this book [48] says, "Alan Canfora was the most active of the survivors of the Kent State shootings". So a redirect seems appropriate to me. Adpete (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explica[edit]

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

Plenty of refs here but none appear to convey any notability. They cover the founder and provide examples of what they do, and links to blogs (their own), mentions of their funding - but nothing that shows any independednt realiable notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small new company, 1-10 employees. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone sourced by advertised PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0[edit]

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

promotional jargon-ridden over-detailed organizational webpage masquerading as an article. I tried, but I am unable to rewrite this to make an acceptable article--it would have to be started over if indeed there is any notability DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a mess. Even searching without the odd suffix yields little. And there is apparently no German name to search for: locating the official website -- which is not in fact the site listed as such in the infobox, that's a site for a subbody -- and selecting German still displays this English name. It doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it seems that there are two topics: the notability of the subject and the quality of the article.

- notability: t0 is recognized for being one of a few non-profit organizations in europe, that have developed a critical discourse about the internet and its social and political implications over a long time, and now they are renowned experts in this field. t0 started in 1993, so they have worked on this for almost 25 years now, which also means more or less ever since the beginning of the world wide web. and they have done this from various angles: as an alternative non-profit internet service provider (mainly during the 1990s), educational programs, new media art, research, publishing. a short selection of co-operating organizations and individual artists and researchers can be found at the end of the WP-article's history-section (almost all of them have own WP-articles). (sorry, if this again sounds like an advertisement, but the question 'is there any notability?' in a way automatically triggers that kind of reply.) - quality of the article: i think that shortening it was a good suggestion. maybe it's still not the best article on WP, but as it can be further improved, quality of the text should not be an unsurmountable problem. - „it's a mess“? (as stated in the above entry) 25 years is a long time for a small organization, with quite some changes, re-naming, sub-organizations, projects etc. and it's for sure not so easy to orient oneself with a few inputs in a search engine (although this problem doesn't really seem to be related to the WP-article). i just gave it a try and copied the article's title in duckduckgo with a good result. first entries: 1. http://world-information.net/en/ = the current url and the same as in the WP-article's infobox, 2. WP-article; 3. the old address t0.or.at, which is now an archive and had been in use until 2006, when the suborganization public netbase had to be discontinued (as briefly described in the article). keep Becomingx7 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Becomingx7 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . It was moved into article space by editor Wizardman at his request. It has been deleted at least once before. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato Onozuka[edit]

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

Wading through the Japanese language refs, I can see nothing here that makes this individual notable. One dead link doesn't help. Originally prodded but prod removed by author with no improvement to content or refs. He apears to be a minor player. The edit summary on creation "Don't delete this article because this actor/actress played a main/supporting role in Kamen Rider Ex-Aid, and will be active and notable later on" is a give away. No significant edits nade since. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. Kurykh (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kriswontwo[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs look impressive but wading through them all reveals nothing but blogs, peripheral mentions and extreme niche listings. The BBC Radio6 ref looked promising , but the content is unavailable to me outside the UK and I doubt whather it is a significant ref. Fails WP:BAND Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella, Kriswontwo is a critically acclaimed music producer. Usually it's harder to find info about the producer's since they often find themselves in the background, but I think he is very worthy of a wiki page. Several refs on BBC Radio plus Billboard ratings. Also loads of college radio listings and various international radio. Also reviews in acclaimed magazines like GAFFA from Denmark. You also mentioned niche listings like it was a bad thing. Is it only major pop artists who are worth mentioning on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.20.63.146 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella, BBC Radio profile on Kriswontwo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/6abe2512-a1cb-4175-be61-3c7520d18b46 I don't think it's good enough reason to delete just because you can't see BBC's website in your country, you should validate with someone from another country then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.20.63.146 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did do due diligence research, and all that that site demonstrates is that one track was played once on the BBC. Please read WP:BAND to understand how notability is defined for musical acts. A single play on the BBC does not equate to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After digging further I've found that it's actually five plays, here are links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07vw9q5 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04n5vwk http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hcp6p http://www.gillespetersonworldwide.com/gilles-peterson-bbc-radio-6-music-fatima-in-session/ http://www.gillespetersonworldwide.com/gilles-peterson-bbc-radio-6-music-session-rewinds/ He is also registered as an artist for Los Angeles record label SomeOthaShip Connect (sub-label to the major, E-One). Here is the link: http://www.someothaship.net/artists/ Also found two honorable mentions, best songs of 2015 from acclaimed soul blog SoulBounce: http://www.soulbounce.com/soul/2016/01/hot-16-soulbounces-best-songs-of-2015/18/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.20.63.146 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda (Lucy) Ash[edit]

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

Painter, but with no awards or work in permanent collections of museums, or major critical works about her. The referencs are trivial notices. DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are all, as far as I can see, routine mentions or self-published or unreliable. I could not find one good independent source in the list provided. The article does not use named refs, which means that several refs are listed repeatedly in the reflist. The galleries listed are not very reputable or, more importantly, important.198.58.162.176 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I am strongly of the opinion that the new entry for Lucinda (Lucy) Ash, most certainly, should NOT be deleted; it should, indeed, be RETAINED. It is a fact that Ash has not received known art-Awards. She is very sadly lacking in official recognition, which she so rightly deserves. As for wall-space in permanent, public galleries: she has not DONATED her work as, I discover, is so often the route for an artist to obtain a permanent public hanging. To answer the adverse criticism that Ash does not have books written about her work: this fact is a sad reflection on the art-world, that she has produced (and sold) a significant and substantial assemblage yet, still, no book-form recognition of her achievement is published. The fact of Lucy Ash is that she has exhibited in very well-respected galleries right across London and her paintings hang in many private collections, internationally. Unlike the “rhetorical bullshit and sheer trash that pass for art”, to which Jonathan Jones has referred, Ash’s paintings are not dashed off in an hour but are well-considered and well-worked, as is clear from the inspection of any of her works. Lucy Ash is a painter of distinction and high integrity. The subjects of her paintings are deeply felt and tirelessly executed. The External link: “Images of Paintings by Lucy Ash”, at the end of her entry, gives a glimpse of the quality of her personal integrity and artistry. It is right that Wikipedia should record Ash’s excellence while we wait for Art-criticism to catch up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadwiki (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am sure I would appreciate her work (certainly that which I have seen) and the topics she handles based on what she has written about her work, we at Wikipedia are not here for art criticism. We rely on secondary sources, and I saw *zero* that spoke about her or her talent. Even if someone is on all the programs of all the best galleries makes no difference--we need an art critic or other secondary source to mention it. If I saw even one secondary source talking about her work, I might consider voting otherwise, but I saw none. Sorry. @Cadwiki: can you point to even one secondary source? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 16 February 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. SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Columbus Crew season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS has been redirected to main team page but has been reverted. Should be redirected per policy. Amortias (T)(C) 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article does meet WP:NSEASONS as this is clearly a top professional league. While WP:NSEASONS encourages and recommends the use of prose, it doesn't require it. The article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggested its redirected not deleted. The fact that its top flight and eligible for an article doesn't mean an article that is purely a list of results should be maintained, the guidelines you are advising should be used to keep it as it is generally notablealso say it should contain prose or be redirected. I see no exceptions for top tier clubs.Amortias (T)(C) 01:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say should contain prose or be redirected; it merely recommends if prose can't be added. There is no reason that prose can't be added. Would you redirect 2016–17 Cardiff City F.C. season? Nfitz (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a breakdown of the AfD logic. In any other type of article, it is the duty of those who argue for keeping it to demonstrate that there are sources that make their argument for notability tenable. If it can be expanded with well-sourced prose, what are the sources this can be done with? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different than the precedent confirmed today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988–89 Juventus F.C. season? Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - per nom. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC) sorry, should've been redirect per nom. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article could definitely use some improvement, it should not be deleted per the longstanding consensus that club seasons in national top flights are notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the guideline says, season articles should consist of well-sourced prose or be redirected. There is consensus for outcomes like this, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. I have no idea where this supposed "top flights" exemption comes from, because the guideline sets the prose requirement for all team season articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced prose can be created, therefore improvement and not deletion/redirection is the proper course of action. Every MLS team is eligible for season articles per established precedent, consensus, and WP:NSEASONS. Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSEASONS states "those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created". There is huge amount of potential for expansion, the match reports alone would be enough to create a substantial amount of prose regarding the club's progress throughout the season. Article is ripe for expansion not deletion. Kosack (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Jesus Christ this is the season for a top division soccer team which meets WP:GNG. This is as stupid as nominations get. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs someone to work on it for a bit and it will be fine. Passes WP:NSEASONS so it shouldnt be deleted. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes it's poorly written, yes it needs improvement but it's notable and passes WP:NSEASONS. DrStrauss talk 12:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly passes WP:NSEASONS. Why was this even nominated? Stop wasting everybody's time and close it. From that page, "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." That's very different from a college team, like Finnusertop mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I took these comments to heart and marked the article as needing improvement, and posted on the talk page what those improvements are. I don't blame User:Amortias for reading the WP:NSEASONS guidelines too literally - they say if it's just prose it should be redirected. In this case, I feel the guidelines are too stringent, as it is common sense that this is good info about a notable team that will not fit in the main Columbus Crew article, and we see this also with 1988–89 Juventus F.C. season. The guidelines should be more like "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. Articles with just statistics should be marked for improvement, and sections added where prose can improve the article."
Keep per all above. Team season article in a top-level national league. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is pretty bad but deletion is not cleanup. Article needs some expansion and more references but by and large it meets WP:NSEASONS. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Should have used RFC for redirect per WP:BLAR.^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 09:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qubole[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:CORP notability. Current article is 80% about routine startup funding. Much of the remainder is the "business overview" section which, predictably for a startup, covers non-notable APIs and toolkits. Here too we have problematic sources like the Silicon Angle blog which is merely reporting on coverage in crowdsourced Wikibon & no-name and highly questionable TechPanda.
Here are results of WP:BEFORE searches. The Register covered it [49] and number 48 out of 50 in an CNBC list [50] are the best online sources available that I can find; no NYT sources, no newspaper sources. This simply doesn't meet substantial coverage in independent RSes required. Brianhe (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. References fail notability criteria as per WP:RS -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam on an unremarkable private company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article tries to promote by repeating most of the body in the lead. Too soon: there are dozens of companies sprouted up recently with such buzzwords and capital letters. (Full disclosure: I worked for one of them that has already gone defunct.) If they last long enough to meet notability requirements then we can add articles at that time. W Nowicki (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Occupy movement raids[edit]

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

Limited content fork, not updated since 2012. Events are already covered in Occupy movement, Timeline of Occupy Wall Street, List of Occupy movement protest locations and elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 16:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially a duplicate of information already present in other articles. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - Looks like original research. Could be transwiki'd to Wikiversity. Falls under research related to anthropology, law, or political science. Michael Ten (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because material merely duplicates material already in other articles about the individual encampments and about the Movement. IF anyone can find material that is not covered elsewhere, we can merge it to appropriate articles - I did not see anything that seemed to require merging. Note that these were not "raids" in any usual sense of the word; the Occupy "encampments" lasted for weeks and in one case months, and had segued from the original "sit-in" protests into homeless encampments before, one by one, they were closed by police in actions that involved arrests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and not encylopedic content AusLondonder (talk) 22:47, 17 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, tagged since 2012. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are discussions of this publication by Negri and Hardt in some recent books: [51], [52]. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small body of literature about this pamphlet. Try searching Declaration + Hardt + Negri. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Further to above comments, I have found this discussing it and this, this, this, and this citing it. There is also this inverview with Hardt: the intro mentions the book as his latest. Perhaps not all entirely reliable but maybe just enough to save the article — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a significant number articles with non-trivial coverage mentioned above. Not all in-depth but beyond simple mentions of the title and subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Gab4gab (talk) 13:55, 12 February 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 World Development Trophy – Single Skating[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antihero for Hire[edit]

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

no assertion of notability, unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. (prev PROD and AfD discussion on talk assumed WP:INHERITED) Widefox; talk 12:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The webcomic may have some notability, but this article is nothing but a summary-only description of it. A worthy article on the subject would need to be written from scratch. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was not able to find any reference to it by sources listed in Wikipedia:Webcomic sources, or any other reliable sources really. Google News search came back empty. Mark Shallow similarly gives me nothing. Definitely less notable than something like El Goonish Shive, which at least has an article on Sequential Tart and is mentioned in T Campbell's book. ~Mable (chat) 11:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's League of Chinland[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability concerns haven't been addressed for almost 10 years; there isn't any real coverage from secondary sources Spiderone 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain but there's one thing I am certain of : that length of time it has been here unimproved is not an argument for deletion, but for paying attention to it and trying to improve it. If it turns out to not be notable it is irrelevant how long it's been sitting here. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google search link does not find any reliable sources. The organization thus fails WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:25, 18 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Dobson[edit]

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

Not really an appropriate topic for disambiguation. The title is the name of a fictional character who is an actress; the "disambiguation" links are the two related series in which the fictional character has appeared. I believe the appropriate resolution here is to redirect the title (if a redirect is needed at all) to the first work in which the character appeared. bd2412 T 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other disambiguation pages with the same issue include: Eric Jonrosh, Lauoreighiya Samcake, and Marty Comanche. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it'd be best to merge The Spoils of Babylon and The Spoils Before Dying into one article. Both miniseries are clearly related and have a lot of overlap. Then Odessa Dobson can be redirected to the merged article without issue. Failing that, The Spoils of Babylon should be the article of choice to redirect to. The Spoils Before Dying is a spin-off. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC) updated -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roomsaver[edit]

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

nonnotable see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HotelCoupons.com, trivial mentions (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nola Falacci[edit]

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

Fictional character that only appeared in 5 episodes of one series. No independent sources. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of reliable sources to support this character having her own page. Redirect to List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent characters is also a viable option. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 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 TLC discography#Compilation albums. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Love TLC[edit]

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

This release was only released in Japan, and it's not a notable recording since it only charted at number 86 in Japan [53]) and doesn't have many sources talking about it. Beyoncetan (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TLC discography#Compilation albums as alternative to deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TLC discography#Compilation albums I agree with Boleyn --David Tornheim (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC discography#Compilation albums Perhaps charting at 86 is enough for WP:NALBUM. With one sentence + track list in the article a redirect seems better. Gab4gab (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC discography#Compilation albums as a plausible search term. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BansheePHP[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No reliable independent references. Fails WP:GNG. One of very many content management systems, few of which have achieved notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage about the BansheePHP in my searches for sources on Google, Google News, and Google Books. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Swain[edit]

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

Drummer who has played with a number of bands but few with any sort of notability. Consequently, I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources and believe he fails to meet the basic criterion for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 12:45, 16 February 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1988–89 Juventus F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails: WP:NSEASONS:

"Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created"

and as such should be redirected to Juventus F.C.. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a joke right? You might as well delete all the early seasons of top flight football clubs then; this was the one you picked today eh? I understand it is not a well sourced article, but is that really the need to delete it? NSEASONS states "it is strongly recommended for sourced prose", which does not translate to "screw it, let's delete it". Usually we just put a reference tag on it, or better yet, find some sources? Stay tuned. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting the guideline. It says

"should consist mainly of well-sourced prose"

and it is

"strongly recommended that those articles be redirected"

if they don't.

We're discussing this article, not other articles that might exist. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did I know you were going to bring up other stuff exists? This is a massive amount of articles, how about 1931–32 Manchester United F.C. season, 1954–55 Liverpool F.C. season, basically anywhere from 1900–1990 X club season. Is that enough stuff? No, but today, it's this article, I get it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep improve the article. No basis for deletion. This nomination is absurd. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Easily, far and away, the single most absurd nomination I have ever seen personally on this site. Thank you for this waste of time. Italia2006 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that this is not going to fly, and apologize for the hassle. I'm curious though, where does this "top team" exemption come from? It's not in the guideline, and season articles do get redirected for failing WP:NSEASONS. (ping Nfitz ?). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it mostly comes from common sense. Top tier seasons - especially teams like this - clearly don't fail WP:NSEASONS. Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Ridiculous, the article should be improved, not deleted. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:15, 12 February 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.