< 12 February	14 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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Bank Officers Association[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about an organization which does not appear to be notable. About 3 dozen hits on google news, but of the listing or trivial mention variety. Did not see a single reference with significant coverage. Fewer results on Books, but of the same variety. Was deprodded without a valid rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Yes the article is poor on all accounts, however this is not grounds for deletion. Google shows very limited hits but then google is very blind to anything older than about 10 years ago. See for example trove. I have not had a chance to sift through this material, but even on a first very quick glance I suggest this article romps it in on NEXISTs. There would appear to be potential here for a very extensive and in-depth article with references going back ~80 years or more. Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment a better trove search is with exclamation marks "Commonwealth+Bank+Officers+Association" which shows far less results. A lot of it is routine like court listings. I will decide later how I vote on this. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes and no, not now notable, but could be kept, could be a paragraph on the FSU page Dave Rave (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decent-sized national trade union that existed for 63 years. Complaining about the lack of Google News results for an organisation that ceased to exist in 1991 is a little bit strange. There is a whole book about its history, plenty of references in other books, and plenty of references in period newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NCORP. Needs a complete rewrite and needs sources to verify it but it makes a credible claim to significance. DrStrauss talk 11:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for improvement. Sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 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 withdrawn. Jenks24 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Len Gabrielson[edit]

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

For reasons unknown, my speedy deletion request (for a page move) was declined. So here we are. We have two Major League Baseball players, but the son's career lasted a decade, his father's five games. So one is a primary topic and the other a hatnote, no? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be a WP:RM to move Len Gabrielson (outfielder) to Len Gabrielson? PamD 09:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a proposal for deletion but a requested move and should be at WO:RM. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to RM we go. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 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) 02:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Schembri[edit]

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

A singer who was one of a group singing a song at Eurovision. Refs give no notability to this individual and only barely to the Eurovision entry. Reads like a puff piece for her modelling career. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - half the sources are essentially to buy the subject's music - is almost entirely promotional and its non-iTunes sources are unreliable. DrStrauss talk 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:Entertainer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 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 Soccer in Palau. No prejudice to redirecting to Palau Soccer League if warranted. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palau Youth Soccer League[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Football league that does not meet WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. PROD was contested without addressing the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contested the PROD because I don't agree with PRODDING an article less than 30 minutes after it was created. I don't understand why there is such a rush to delete this article. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article age is one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, not a policy, and I am not obligated to obey it. I believe my objection is perfectly sensible. Lepricavark (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the article was de-propped to force a discussion. It's irrelevant in the discussion itself, but at the same time, it's a valid justification for having the discussion rather than just deleting it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 10:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soccer in Palau, which mentions the league. Smartyllama (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palau Soccer League, deletion nomination was premature per Lepricavark. Quidster4040 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Quidster4040 and Smartyllama, either to Soccer in Palau or Palau Soccer League. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer in Palau per Smartyllama. Lepricavark (talk) 21:17, 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) 02:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Jenny O.[edit]

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

Non-notable media personality fails GNG and NMEDIA. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has national news coverage for television presenting and singing career, such as here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources 1-5 are all clear announcements and the current source above is in fact the same available press release, none of it would satisfy our simplest policies because they clearly state "Wikipedia is not a PR webhost"; attempted searches found nothing else better. GNG has never been policy, but NOT always have been since it manages our encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first afd nomination was closed as no consensus with the "keep" votes not pointing out convincing reasons why it shouldn't be deleted. The subject still fails GNG and MUSICBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 01:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The sources in the article are not convincing. The second and fourth sources appear to be identical press releases about her "Shomora" song. The first, third, and fifth sources are interviews (primary sources). A google search of the subject doesn't bring up any independent sources. Moreover, none of her musical releases have been discussed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, article reads like a puff piece and is poorly sourced. DrStrauss talk 11:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable NMEDIA.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Lawal[edit]

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

PR-toned article with only what he himself would advertise about his career and it's unsuitable for our policies because any advertising can and will be removed; the sources are only mere business announcements and mentions. The driveby removal IP has potential signs of it being SPA given the immediate attention to an otherwise quiet PR article. Not a single source here is in fact actually independent and notability-convincing, take:

1 is a PR announcement
2 is same
3 is
4 is same
5 is his own website
6 is same, his own profile
7 is same as 1-4
8 is same
9 is same
10-13 are all quickly the same, except 13 is republished SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Swister Twister, fails WP:GNG with the lack of credible outside sources. South Nashua (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article too heavily plagued with sourcing to PR annoucements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam from an undeclared paid sock farm. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deikars. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I smell COI and at any rate should the advertising be removed it would be almost empty. Fails WP:GNG too. DrStrauss talk 11:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 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) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Code Aster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD was closed as no consensus as it attracted only two responses (one each way) - I'm hoping this time we can attract enough comments for a consensus, especially as this article has been waiting with a notability tag on it for 9 years now. Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Opening new AfD just days after the first one was closed? As of sources, my preliminary search shows nothing substantial in usual tech media. What about sources posted by keep vote in the last AfD? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see if it wasn't tagged for technology, last time. Maybe we can some engineering folks chime in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first AFD was closed only two days ago. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion () is of the opinion that we generally do not renominate a page for at least two months after a "no consensus" close, and I tend to agree. Are none of the 1200+ GScholar hits useful? Are none of the 1800+ GBooks hits useful? — Sam Sailor 12:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The actual links on the article are mainly other wikis and promotional material. Academia's tendency to cite all software used in research would explain the GScholar results. Ziphit (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, what was the policy based argument for deletion? — Sam Sailor 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgot to include WP:DEL4 WP:SIGCOV, The GScholar references do not count as significant coverage, otherwise a slew of other software-related articles that were deemed non-notable would be notable Ziphit (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software tagged since August 2008, as I have said in the last AfD. Searching fails to find independent reliable sources. The source provided by Siuenti is not a reliable source, and I do not see coverage in the source provided by Gregory Holst. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN - an argument to be avoided. Repeating it doesn't make it any better. — Sam Sailor 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is niche open source Engineering software which isn't going to get a lot of media coverage. A quick search does find a couple of guide books written about using the software, and some technical papers discussing the results of using the software: [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] There are also numerous search results for classes for the software, suggesting a viable user base. Timtempleton (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the technical papers and guidebooks get it over GNG. I agree with Timtempleton:this is niche open source Engineering software which isn't going to get a lot of media coverage. In my mind, that means it isn't going to meet GNG. It has value for the community it serves, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloody Fists[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Cannot find reliable sources for establishing notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. You would think, with a notable director, stars, and choreographer, that there would be some coverage out there. But since this was released in the 1970s it may be hard to find online. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are available, not sure how good they are: this one and this bit about banned/unrated films. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Time Out one is short but still good. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep because there are a few results in Google Books when I search for this film. One book, Hong Kong Action Cinema, says, "His first hit was the widely distributed Bloody Fists." The book Films of Fury: The Kung Fu Movie Book calls this film "an independent produced milestone". I agree with Anachronist that online coverage would be difficult to find, but it does not mean that the topic is not notable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Martial Arts Movies has this entry for the film here. Last paragraph is good out-of-universe background information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented in the article the sources mentioned in this discussion. I'm fine with keeping it now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Erik's expansion of content and references. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:53, 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) 02:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Mampre[edit]

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

Albert Mampre was a World War II member of Easy Company (aka the Band of Brothers); however, he was not mentioned in the history by Steven Ambrose or featured in the resulting TV series. Mampre does not qualify under the criteria in WP:SOLDIER. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of attention in news articles (also called "Al Mampre"); veterans of Easy Company became celebrities, those that were still alive after Saving Private Ryan in 1998 and Band of Brothers (the book in 1993, the miniseries in 2001) even more so. Satisfies GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NCO with no gallantry decorations. Clear fail of WP:SOLDIER. Not every member of Easy Company is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a member of a unit that was the subject of a book or TV show does not confer notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Presumably this would also apply to most/all of the "Other Easy Company veterans" included in the template at the bottom of this article? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Under WP:SOLDIER, all; in practical terms, deleting some (such as Richard Winters) would probably be a hard sell.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, membership of a regiment is not mentioned as a valid criterion for notability in WP:SOLDIER. Also, the references are all from one publisher which makes the article difficult to independently verify. DrStrauss talk 11:37, 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) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MillRace IT[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGO. Charity does not have national or international scope. Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:NGO, WP:ORG, WP:GNG, is unreferenced and appears to exist solely to advertise its subject, bordering on CSD A7 and G11. DrStrauss talk 11:38, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Syvret[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. No presumed notability per WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by now-creation-banned Dolovis, in defiance of pertinent notability criteria. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 03:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article on a hockey player that does not meet our very low inclusion standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, failing WP's hockey inclusion standards is almost impossible but this one does it. DrStrauss talk 11:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:01, 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 Keep under WP:SNOW (because strictly speaking I can't withdraw the nomination and speedy keep; WP:SK ground 1 can only be invoked if there are no other !votes for deletion). I'm happy to accept the assurances I've received about the sources, and I don't believe it would be possible to close this debate in any other way.—S Marshall T/C 02:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MobilePay[edit]

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

This content worries me a bit. It was created in 2016, as a content translation, and then deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 (in August 2016). In September 2016, it returned, again as a content translation. This version does not appear to be G11-able to me, but I don't think it's well-sourced, nor was I able to find the kind of sources that would enable me to write a proper Wikipedia article. Can we delete and salt please? —S Marshall T/C 20:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found nothing in the way of third-party sources. If anyone can find a source or two, it could be merged into the Danske Bank article but it doesn't seem notable enough for an article of its own. —Non-Dropframe _talk 20:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course this article should not be deleted. MobilePay is a social phenomenon of considerable importance in Denmark. It has had a remarkable impact on the way individuals do small business together, in many cases eliminating the need to carry cash. The number of registred users passed 3 million in May, 2016, which is more than half the population. You cannot ignore this phenomenon. That's why I translated the article, since it is available on Danish Wikipedia, but was missing from the English. What do you mean you cannot find any sources? A google search like "mobilepay antal brugere" yields more than 22,000 hits, and they are NOT from Danske Bank. Of course this requires that you can read Danish :) gjensen (talk) 21:56, February 2017 (UTC)
Please could you link any two independent, reliable sources, in Danish or otherwise? I will immediately withdraw this AfD nomination if you do.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart, there's already three in the article, and there's plenty of more to add. WP:WDAFD? — Sam Sailor 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just confirm to me that you speak Danish and you're content to assure me those sources are reliable and independent?—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can, but could you add a ((source assess)) and argue they are not? The three sources already present are both WP:IR and WP:IND. Could you just confirm to me that you speak Danish? — Sam Sailor 01:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. You do, and I trust you. :) Withdrawing.—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to pass WP:GNG. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Sam Sailor 00:43, 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 not delete. Other outcomes (merge, redirect, listify, etc.) can be hashed out on the article talk page. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar explosion[edit]

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

Of the 33 pages that use the term "stellar explosion" almost every single one of them defines which term (nova/supernova/etc) is being referenced within the same sentence. Basically, this is unnecessary disambiguation. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How annoying. On my exploration, I discovered there's a category of stellar explosion Luminous red nova caused by stellar collision. Thats interesting! Part of the magic of wikipedia is it's ability to guide you to interesting things, even if you aren't looking for them. Are we short of hard drive space or something?? Fmadd (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For Wikipedia to succeed, we need a certain amount of organization and consolidation. The stellar explosion article does not need to stand on its own when other articles suffice. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'organisation' , yes, these kind of pages "organize" the material by helping the reader discover. Isn't it great that wikipedia can guide you to information you weren't aware of? If you think this is "overlinking", why not push for a way of prioritizing links, instead of it having to be a binary choice (LINK or NO LINK). All this time you spend fighting me could go into improving the platform. The links could be visually weighted (the shade of blue). Fmadd (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read about this, Word_embedding, now imagine extending this algorithm to include wikilinks in the vocabulary. Wikipedia should be an amazing resource for AI training. The more links it has the better. Please please please instead of getting all uptight about what should be linked, can we extend the wikipedia platform to prioritize links, so it's not a binary choice, if people think there are 'too many'. Every link we add makes the data set 'smarter'. Fmadd (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep as is. This is certainly a plausible search term for a topic, so no reason to delete. It could also include solar flare, or Failed supernova in its targets if kept as disambiguation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, would renaming the page "Types of stellar explosions" be better? This is starting to feel less like a DAB and more like a list. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Stellar explosion" is a likely thing for people to type to search for something "Types of ..." is much less likely, so I would suggest Stellar explosion types if you want to have "type". But if this really turns into a list, then it should be called "List of stellar explosion types"
I can sort of get behind it being a list. As mentioned in the nomination, almost every usage is something along the lines of "X is a type of stellar explosion" or "a stellar explosion such as X, Y, Z". In other words, it just really doesn't fit as a dab, and it really doesn't fit in the lead of Type Ib and Ic supernovae (even as a list), which is what Fmadd is insistent upon. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'd be perfectly happy with a list. Anything that lets you explore.(One thing I run into is ambiguity.. should it be a list or a category. is it an overkill to have a category for a few entires) Fmadd (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Tidal disruption event which may look like an explosion from a distance, but is something different! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Methods of a 'stellar explosion' covers a very wide plethora of complicated mechanisms that are not simple to explain. It simply says that a supernova is a type of stellar explosion, and is among a group of objects in several sub-categories. Anyone who doesn't like it, please properly use the Talkpages. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.. "very wide plethora" ... that's what I suspected. If stellar explosion and supernova were synonymous, why would both terms exist. They must carry different connotations. A curious mind seeing 'a supernova is a stellar explosion' will want to know if there are others. Fmadd (talk)

rename&redirect (whats the etiquette here?) - rename this as 'list of stellar explosion events', [stellar explosion] can just redirect to that. the exploration is interesting. the appeal of wikipedia is to guide you to interesting info you didn't know to look for. Fmadd (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a list article. Disambiguation pages are not meant to define shades of meaning between related terms. — Gorthian (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a list, Delete or Make a real article (in order of probability). If you think you can come up with enough actual (sourced) content to write an article, the last would be preferable. But what's there now is just a list and should be organized and described as such. The other thing, which I mentioned on the editor's talk page, is to beware of overlinking. Adding extra links devalues other links in the article simply by clutter, so it's certainly questionable whether wikilinking every mention of "stellar explosion" that can be found, is worth it. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered things I did not know just going through this process.. isn't the beauty of wikipedia to inform people - can we push for a means of prioritizing links, for example 'list of', glossary definitions' could be automatically de-emphasized (the system clearly queries the links as part of rendering the page, because it knows about redlinks, and there's a facility to highlight disambiguation pages too) Fmadd (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 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) 02:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename: Gordon[edit]

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

The article was recently delisted of its GA status but I have doubts about its notability. Nearly half of its sources are dialogue from the game, one is a press release, another is an abandonware website, two are interviews, and the Gameplanet link is dead. The lack of any real secondary sources for the article has me believing the article should be deleted. GamerPro64 19:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I really don't like the way the article implies that this was an official release in the Halflife franchise. (Even listing Valve as "Publisher" in the infobox instead of "distributor".). Sure, back then non-valve games didn't appear on Steam much, but it wasn't a "serious" release. They just thought it was funny. Unfortunately, that relationship with Valve seems to be the game's only notability. ApLundell (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"seriousity" is not correlated with notability. Looking at reliable sources search, I find quite some reception. Keep. Shaddim (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For convince could you link to some of the sources that have covered this topic especially since the nonimator mentioned a lack of secondary sources.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about that search is supposed to inspire confidence in it meeting the GNG? The fact that it has zero professional professional (or user) reviews on Metacritic? Or the fact that major video game websites like IGN have zero articles on the subject, only a short database entry that isn't significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my above commentary. Zero sources from the most likely areas to find it. Just about everything in article is first party - citing the game, interviews, and press releases. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with Sergecross73 - article makes no independently sourced claim to notability, lacking WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 11:42, 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) 02:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TolumiDE[edit]

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

No reliable sources proving notability, no hits, no notable record label, etc. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointed out by the nominator. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and simply hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 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) 02:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thermomagnetic[edit]

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

This dab is unnecessary, because every link here is "Thermomagnetic X" where X can just as easily be placed in the article as it would be placed here. Plus, creating the actual link avoids the dab. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Gorthian (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (2nd choice) redirect. These entries are all partial-title matches because "thermomagnetic" is an adjective. Per WP:ADJECTIVE, the page should redirect to Thermomagnetism, the noun, but there is no article at that title. If redirected, my choice for a target would be Thermomagnetic effect, since that takes the reader straight to a definition. But my first choice is to delete. — Gorthian (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:ADJECTIVE with no suitable page for redirect. Flat Out (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:ADJECTIVE.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:06, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Shelton[edit]

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

PRODDED as not meeting WP:NGOLF criteria. Tag removed by page creator with no explanation. Domdeparis (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator the consensus is that the Walker Cup passes category 1 in WP:NGOLF, but as I mentioned below in category 1 the examples are all Pro cups whereas the Walker Cup is amateur so I have a doubt about it being a "similar international competition". --Domdeparis (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Fails WP:NGOLF. MereTechnicality ⚙ 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wasn't aware that the Walker Cup counted. He passes NGOLF in that case. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGOLF and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't really consider the Walker Cup as being enough to meet cat. 1 of WP:NGOLF, but since it seems to be enough, he merits his own articles. And some sources have also been added to the article. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Category 1 of WP:NGOLF is normally regarded as including the Walker Cup, thus enabling strong amateur golfers to qualify for inclusion. He played in the 2015 Walker Cup and is included in the List of American Walker Cup golfers. He was also in the 2014 Palmer Cup and 2015 Palmer Cup teams, which also have a List of American Arnold Palmer Cup golfers page where he appears. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NGOLF, category 1 and meets WP:GNG. Tewapack (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone who doesn't work in this area I can't tell a Walker or Palmer Cup appearance does meet the type of events mentioned in NGOLF #1 but this amateur-turning-pro does meet GNG, with news coverage such as this and others. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage to demonstrate that subject passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not really sure if there is enough to prove GNG but if the consensus is that the Walker Cup passes the category 1 I'll withdraw my nomination but it would be good to maybe modify the NGOLF criteria to make it clearer what "similar international competition" means as the 3 mentioned are all part of a professional tour (PGA or LPGA) whereas the Walker cup is for amateurs. Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 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 keep and move to Mr. America (contest). Kurykh (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AAU Mr. America[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Unreferenced as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources that mention the event as "Mr. America" such as Los Angeles Times, an Oxford Journal, New York Times, and The Atlantic. I would go so far as to move the page to Mr. America (contest) because the contest is simply referred to as "Mr. America" and not "AAU Mr. America" Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Mr. America (contest). Old contest. Sources Exist. Including a book already on the page. As User:Yoshiman6464 Title may have misled Nom into running WP:BEFORE on a nonproductive search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Mr. America (contest). This is a notable event in the Body Building industry, with significant history spanning sixty years. Scr★pIron^IV 16:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:11, 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 keep. Further comments have not changed consensus. Kurykh (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Terzić[edit]

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

This is another Sander.v.Ginkel article moved out of draft space. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Terzic was the coach not an athlete so he fails WP:NOLY, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote pending outcome fo below poor reasoning on both parts L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOLY. The Banner talk 21:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This very Zoran Terzić has 9830 Google News hits from media all over the world, won several medals as a national team first coach, including the silver at the Olympics in Rio that should be enough for a speedy keep. I really don't care who created this article and how, but the level of ignorance on display here is stunning. Has any of the commenters above even bothered to read our Deletion policy, or just clicked any of the links within "find sources" above? I'm flabbergasted. No such user (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such user Yes I read the Deletion Policy, for kicks. Welcome to AfDs. The article is basically a stub. If its expanded, I'll vote it keep.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 12:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 I don't see "being a stub" listed under any of 14 criteria of WP:DEL-REASON. Category:All stub articles currently has 2,023,704 articles – do you propose deleting them all? As to the nominator's reasons, among other achievements the subject has won a silver medal at the Olympics as a coach, fulfilling WP:ANYBIO criterion of [having] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field., and with few thousand news hits over a 20-year long career span as a coach {FIVB}, including full-length interviews in Politika, and shorter mentions in ESPN or USA Today. No such user (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such user I use Delreason as a general policy, not an exact. I think when I delete, not outsource it to a broad policy. I'm not a deletionist. As for stubs, I am okay with stubs existing. I am more comfortable deleting an article with 30 words than 30,000 bytes. And as far as I can tell, coaches don't get medals from the IOC. ^[1] L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bustle.com/articles/175844-do-olympic-coaches-get-medals-the-rio-olympics-coaches-might-come-home-empty-handed

Whether they get that piece of metal is irrelevant: what they get as a result is achievement and notability, which translates to a Wikipedia article. And it's not that Terzić wasn't notable even without that particular medal. And you're supposed to argue on an Afd on the basis of an established policy, not on a policy as you'd like it to be. No such user (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: I disagree. WP:NOLY (as well as everything else under NATHLETE) does not include coaches. Maybe you think it should. I recommend you raise that issue at the applicable talk page rather than argue it here. Had Terzic been an athlete I would not have nominated this article. I'm applying the rules as they read now, not as some would prefer them to read. You could accomplish more writing an essay arguing that coaches deserve the same notability their athletes do and cite that. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the get that piece of metal is irrelevant nope. You said he got a medal. I said and cited that coaches receive nothing from the IOC. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: WP:NOLY is a complete red herring. This is the first time I heard about that SNG and I haven't mentioned it in this debate at all. By your line of thought, we should delete Bill Belichick – he fails WP:NOLY as well, never competing nor coaching at the Olympics. My point is that just like Belichick, Terzić fulfills WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO with flying colors, a fact that you could have simply discovered WP:BEFORE wasting our collective time with this nomination. And even for a literalist worldview, WP:NSPORT itself mentions word "coach" 32 times, including (in the WP:NTRACK) section Coaches that have coached many notable athletes, including at least one (non-relay) Olympic medalist,... – surely that ought to apply to a medalist *team* coach as well? <sarcasm>Or do we have to specifically add a section on Volleyball to carry the point across?</sarcasm> No such user (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: NOLY is part of NSPORT and that's a guideline so I assume you mean that the word coach should be found there even though it's not. You ask "do we have to specifically add a section on Volleyball to carry the point across" and I reply yes. The guideline says what it says. If it had said otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it. My nominating articles that result in "keep" hurts my AfD percentage. I'm not making these nominations to be POINTy. I performed research per WP:BEFORE, I (still) find the subject fails GNG and he fails applicable SNGs. (Mere mentions don't carry GNG for me.) I'm not accustomed to checking out an article, finding the subject doesn't strictly meet criteria, and then letting it slide; I'm not an inclusionist. Again, if you don't like the SNG this isn't the place to argue what you want NSPORT to say. I also don't understand this distaste of my apparent "literalist worldview". Silly me, I'm dispassionately applying Wikipedia's consensus impartially but thanks for criticizing me. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coach at many main international tournaments including three consecutive Olympics including winning a medal. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree...a coach at many international tournaments including the Olympics winning a medal makes it notable. However, it does need work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable coach who won medals at the Olympic Games, World Championship, World Cup and European Championship. The article can be expanded with its corresponding version in the russian wikipedia. Arielslytherin (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after initially closing as "keep"; an editor pointed out to me on my talk page that the "keep" opinions appear weakly argued.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: If anything is weakly argued here, it is the nominator's point. In fact, I find it bizarre to even state that a coach who has won 4 world or continental medals and has thousands articles written and interviews given fails GNG and ANYBIO, that I didn't even consider further engagement with such silly arguments. No such user (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of the "literalist worldview": the lead sentence in his interview to Politika, the oldest and most respected Serbian daily, translation mine: About Zoran Terzić (50) one can safely say that he is the "father" of Serbian women's national team, having in mind that he has been at its helm for a decade and a half, but also that he has won one medal per year on average (15 in total), including all World Volleyball Federation events and the European Games in Baku. No such user (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the abundance of sources demonstrating notability. Lepricavark (talk) 20:37, 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) 02:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Express[edit]

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

This article is merely about a bus service that only operated between Hyderabad city and its airport. That too, the service is no longer operating. Normally, such information is contained in the "Access" section of airport articles, and this article's subject has been mentioned – honestly, I don't feel it is notable enough to have its own entire article. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that a summary would normally be found in the airport article, that doesn't mean we can't also have a more detailed article on the route if there's enough sources and content to support one. In this case the subject seems to have been covered by multiple national news sources, so it would appear to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.79.125 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 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, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the airport article per WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 16:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize that there is some coverage in the news, but it's mostly routine stuff like "hey here's a new bus line," "we added a stop to the line," "we cancelled the line oops". I don't know that that really qualifies as being in-depth enough for the purposes of having its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 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 speedy delete - pure vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedh Yadavalli[edit]

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

Self-promotional article for non-notable photographer. Previously tagged as BLPPROD by User:MereTechnicality, sources added by page creator are either dead links or contain only passing mentions... not sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - under G11 and A7. Quite promotional, author is subject, no notability mentioned. MereTechnicality ⚙ 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely non-notable. Four of five sources removed as being unrelated to this person or being dead links. Only source left notes him in passing as the leader of a local Model United Nations chapter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per MereTechnicality. Probably should have been CSDed rather than come here. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per everyone above. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. Horrible. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Daniels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article about an artist who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: How is this promotional??? Please can you elaborate more. Duncan Daniels meets GNG and also WP:MUSICBIO. What it (the page) probably lacks is insufficient inline citations to support the contents. if you have carefully read WP:MUSICBIO you would know that Duncan Daniels isnt close to falling under not meeting WP:MUSICBIO Ukpong1 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukpong1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the cases in MUSICBIO does the article pass? Kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guideline —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and has not been discussed in reliable independent sources. Fab Magazine's review about his Art of Me album, and OkayAfrica's short piece about his "Six Past Six" song are not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Moreover, being nominated two times at the Nigeria Entertainment Awards isn't enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing enough notability either. A reference to Wikipedia is not suitable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Educational mall[edit]

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

Article has very little relevant information, also seemingly looks like a marketing attempt in a way. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete After removing material related to Flipkart, the article is an unreferenced stub about a non-notable company. Tagged for speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 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 speedy delete per WP:A10. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infrardeča spektroskopija[edit]

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

foreign language Stephreef (talk) 15:12, 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 as advertising. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DaBest Classifieds Philippines[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable website. The only sources in the article appear to be promotional; in fact, the article itself looks promotional as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tried to edit out the promotion, but without it the article is basically just a single sentence. Speedy delete per G11. MereTechnicality ⚙ 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I would agree. It is clearly promotional with no notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Removed external links to comply with Wikipedia policies Lhorenz22 —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Can't find any third party reliable source. Clearly a promotional piece. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:PROMO --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable online website/company.No Reference.Can't find reliable source.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua M. Ferguson[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer and filmmaker, with some advertorial overtones ("Joshua has harnessed these experiences to help others with the powerful reach of cinematic messages, which offer hope, visibility and forms of fantastical and inspirational escapes to marginalized people"), whose claims of notability are potentially valid but nowhere close to reliably sourced. This is based mainly on primary sources, such as Ferguson's own Twitter, the film's Indiegogo campaign, the website of Ferguson's production company, and on and so forth -- and the fewer reliable sources that are being cited here are not about Ferguson, but virtually all just blurbingly namecheck Ferguson's existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about someone or something else. There's literally just one source here (#29) that's both substantively about Ferguson and independent of their own self-published web presence -- and even that source is just a "what are they doing now" profile in the context of Ferguson being a past winner of a non-notable educational scholarship, not anything that would constitute a strong WP:CREATIVE claim in and of itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Ferguson's notability can be sourced properly -- but they're not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist, and this is not the kind of referencing it takes to get them over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 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) 02:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Yint Min Thu Htut[edit]

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

Non-notable researcher/hacker. The article doesn't seem to be satisfy GNG. Phyo WP (message) 14:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His contribution on security vulnerabilities of Apple ( Search "Ye Yint", can find three times )

His contribution on security vulnerabilities of Blackberry ( check acknowledgement 2016 section )

The other references are also added in references section of Article [8]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatisyourbug (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah,I agreed to delete this page with no excuse. I dun want to appear my profile at here. So, Please help vote to disappear this page and also help nominate AFD for upcoming page of mine. @Phyo "Non-notable researcher/hacker." Thanks for your remark on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeyintminthuhtut (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is @Phyo, what is his expertise and how he confirm that "Non-notable researcher/hacker", hacker database (https://www.soldierx.com/hdb/Ye-Yint-Min-Thu-Htut) is not enough for reference that @Ye_Yint_Min_Thu_Htut is security researcher?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyaw Thiha89 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@kyaw, It is ok and I agreed for AFD. He is my state school senior at St.Augustine and Doctor @MOH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeyintminthuhtut (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Whatisyourbug, Yeyintminthuhtut, Kyaw Thiha89, et al. I have no intention to offend you by calling Non-notable researcher/hacker outside the Wikipedia, and just commented to a Wikipedia article about its notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, it is not my remark on you, just to the Wikipedia article. Non-notable means the article fails to show notability / no reliable sources found to verify notability in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy regarding biographies of living persons. There are certain things that Wikipedia is not. Thank you for your contributions in Wikipedia. Phyo WP (message) 08:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 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. The consensus below is that additional sources located in the course of this AfD are sufficient to demonstrate notability for this pre-internet era actor. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Durkin (actor)[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of an actor and film director, which is not reliably sourcing him over WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE for any particular accomplishment besides existing. Nearly all of his listed roles as an actor are either short films or "uncredited", and virtually all of his listed films as a director are short films -- and for sourcing, what we have here is two directories (the Internet Broadway Database and Findagrave) rather than any actual reliable source coverage about him. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can demonstrate notability properly, but he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not just nominally verifiable in a couple of databases, to earn an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR. Has played named roles in multiple notable films. None appear to be significant. Better sourcing might change my mind. I haven't been able to locate any myself.~~ Added sources sufficient to meet [WP:DIRECTOR]. Gab4gab (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe this discussion is taking place of all the bios(WP:FILMBIO) I've contributed. You'd think people here would be grateful. How many people in the silent and sound entertainment are listed whom are much more insignificant than Durkin. He should have long had an article thats why I made one up on him. Just because a few people don't know of him doesn't mean he wasn't significant or doesn't count. That's the whole point of the article to teach you. He was a stage, screen actor and screen director which should get him place on wikipedia. He doesn't have to be Cecil B. DeMille. Most of Durkins directorial efforts are lost as I would expect many who edit silent movies would understand.Koplimek (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said he has to be Cecil B. DeMille — but what he does have to be is reliably sourceable as passing an actual notability criterion in either WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE, which is a significantly higher standard than "user-generated databases like Findagrave and IBDb verify that he existed". And nobody owes you a cookie just because you're here, either — your job in creating articles is to demonstrate and source notability properly, which you did not do in this case. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you or anybody owed me anything. The article was sourced WP rules. Koplimek (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Findagrave and IBDb are not sources that assist in demonstrating notability. It's possible that the article might be salvageable with proper sources, which it looks like some other users are starting to do below, but there was nothing in the article at the time of nomination that constituted a valid source. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, yes they wereWP:CS, inline citation and general reference. Even the WP:QUESTIONABLE, questionable content of websites, which nevertheless are still citable in limited usage. A reliable sources box follows them which is usually the case seen on new articles. Koplimek (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've found enough to beef it up a bit. He did act and direct on Broadway, after all. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please help me understand. Are you saying he meets a notability guideline because he acted and directed on Broadway or that he doesn't need to meet any guidelines for the same reason? (or something else entirely?) Gab4gab (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject had an entry in a 1914 Who's Who for American theater, which I've added to the article as a general reference (and left it to the article's creator to extract details for use in the article itself). Also, here is a listing of theater publications that mention the subject. Most of them are brief mentions, but can be used to reliably source the subject's appearances on the American stage. I didn't do any checking for contemporaneous film appearances, but there's enough here about his theater work to sustain the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I find that publication and the Notable People in Music and Drama book are fine sources for info on so long ago performers who through early death, marriage, retirement are long forgotten. I saw Durkin's entry in Notable People several days ago but put off entering it. I sometimes forget the title of the book but always go back to Henry B. Harris wiki cause he's the first person I retrieved the info from that source on. Cheers!Koplimek (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since nomination the necessary independent third party references have been added to bring this article up to strength. Certainly the three Variety articles from 1914, 1915 alone constitute proof of independent reporting of this subject's notability in his time. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:43, 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) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raghubeer Singh[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. I can't find anything in reliable sources to support notability also no evidence to support his work in Bhagyavidhata and Madhubala – Ek Ishq Ek Junoon. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of GNG Spiderone 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a filmmaker lacking citations to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 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) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rupp Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Initially closed as no consensus WP:NPASR. Relisting to gain further opinions. Article/topic still, in my opinion, fails WP:GNG and as such shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Only available source within the article is WP:PRIMARY. What might have been a duplicate article of the same topic was previously deleted here. GauchoDude (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An award that no third party sources have written about is not notable. Happy to reconsider if reliable third party sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 18:03, 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) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 VMI Keydets men's soccer team[edit]

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

Contested PROD from an IP-user. Non-notable season for a collegiate soccer team. Fails WP:NSEASONS and ultimately fails WP:GNG. Sourcing of article, when present, is WP:PRIMARY. Consensus for similar collegiate soccer season(s) resulted in delete here. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as consensus seems to be these are not notable. That being said, if someone were to create VMI Keydets men's soccer as an actual page and not a redirect to VMI Keydets, this should redirect there per WP:NSEASONS. I don't see the main VMI Keydets article being relevant enough to warrant a redirect, however. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability and there is prior consensus supporting the deletion of these kind of articles as not inherently notable. Giant Snowman 17:36, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German New Zealanders[edit]

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

See AfD discussion on this DrStrauss talk 11:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep a long history of migration to New Zealand. In fact this source says around 200,000 kiwis have some German heritage. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are heaps of German New Zealanders; meets WP:GNG. J 947 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep During WWI, there was a very strong anti-German movement in New Zealand. Villages with German names, founded by German settlers, were renamed (e.g. Ranzau became Hope). The German Church in Christchurch was taken over by the Crown. Longstanding and previously highly regarded German New Zealanders were persecuted. All of that received lots of media coverage. That period alone achieves GNG for this group of people. Schwede 66 00:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aricle needs work, but shouldn't be deleted.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 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. No prejudice to redirection to Scandinavian New Zealanders. Kurykh (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish New Zealanders[edit]

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

See AfD discussion on this DrStrauss talk 11:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete 1400 in a population of 4.7 million with no notable achievements. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete No notable influence on NZ. Notability isn't inherited, so even if Russel Crowe (who is very notable) is part Swedish it doesn't make NZ Swedes notable. Sjö (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unconvinced of WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the section which will have information on the 'Scandinavian New Zealanders' article – Pass the info on. J 947 19:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Scandinavian New Zealanders. Mattlore (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments on my original nom. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:53, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Brewers[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on local club which fails WP:NSPORT, WP:ORGCRITE and WP:GNG. Makes no credible claim of significance. DrStrauss talk 10:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 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 merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triluminary[edit]

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

This article is about a very minor aspect of the Babylon 5 universe. It is primarily written in an in-universe style and contains original research. For what it's worth, the Babylon 5 Wiki article is just as long, which speaks to the lack of notability even within its own universe. Thunderforge (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, a rather unusually named article, but seemingly the best target for a marginally notable fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 per Jclemens' comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 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) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buxani[edit]

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

I don't see that Kishore Buxani meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. What little coverage there is that does more than barely mention his name or quote him or say that he confirmed something still mentions him only in passing in routine articles covering real estate projects. Largoplazo (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the similar article Kishore Buxani which has been started by the same editor during the course of this AfD (and which exhibits a similar failure to meet WP:NPOV). AllyD (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography with a heavily promotional tone. There is a FergusTan.net/Business Times piece on the subject's "passion for real estate" but neither that nor anything else seems sufficient to indicate the subject as more than a man going about his business or makes a convincing case for encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, along with the Kishore Buxani article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 21 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) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navcane[edit]

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

Fails to meet the WP:GNG with very thin sourcing. The magazine article is actually written by the CEO (according to the Behance page) who also created this article. Raymie (t • c) 05:14, 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 06:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rather blatant advertisement. No indication of notability. Huon (talk) 00:55, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Garcia (government official)[edit]

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

No Reliable sources have found this gentleman to be Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article could go. While I saw some sources listed, the article was not composed in proper Wikipedia format. Nor is this official notable enough to merit such an entry.TH1980 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - he held the office of Assistant Secretary which is a sub-cabinet position, therefore covered by POLOUTCOMES (per previous discussion, the ranks of Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary in the U.S. system are considered Sub-Cabinet; Deputy Assistant Secretary is not). The article needs addition of sources, however, a cursory search of Google indicates these are readily available; just a couple of numerous ones here: [9], [10], [11], etc., etc. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've updated the article with sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sourcing exists. Lepricavark (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to see this article give us more substantive information on Garcia's education and other background information, but his level of office in the US federal government and the notice he got clearly are enough to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for refimprove. Further improvement is certainly still needed here, but the claim of notability is reasonably strong and the sourcing has been improved enough to cover off the basic WP:GNG question. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP article is more than adequate. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person.Passes WP:GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 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) 02:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Coffey[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable American newscaster. Contested PROD based on winning a regional Emmy, which per long time consensus is not sufficient to establish notability. Only sources on page are IMDB links. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone have a link to the long-time consensus on regional Emmys not being sufficient for establishing notability? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local television journalists at the individual- station level are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they get articles only if and when they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG. And regardless of the notability or non-notability of winning a regional Emmy, even winning a national Emmy would not confer an exemption from having to be reliably sourced over GNG; the article would still have to be sourced to actually get kept, and IMDb is not sourcing. I'm willing to reconsider this if proper referencing can be shown, but nothing here exempts her from having to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we supposed to look for reliable sources that exist, not just those in the article at the present? Are you confirming that you found no reliable sources to back up notability? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local television figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real potential hook for notability is her Emmy, and despite whatever unproven guideline/consensus around a regional Emmy not being a useful notability hook is referred to above (if you can't link it, it doesn't exist), it is reasonable to search for RS coverage per GNG surrounding an impressive award like this. So, I did this search, and in terms of any deep coverage beyond mentions, I turned up dry. But if anyone else can turn up something, I'm willing to reconsider my !vote. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no trouble in finding in-depth coverage such as [12] [13], and [14]. I didn't look further because with the raw vote count here, the closer will either reject all of the deletes as without evidence, or count them up without regard to evidence. On-air personalities gain attention directly from the public, which goes directly to Wikipedia's understanding of notability as attention from the world at large. Like other evidence, a regional Emmy shows attention to the topic by the world at large. Also note that there are references in the article not specifically identified as citations, such as Louisville Business First and Louisville Magazine. That leaves a lot of uncited material in the article that might require cuts or research to cite, but a stub would have value to the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those linked sources are minor media and local to the subject's hometown. I'm very open-minded to in-depth coverage being unearthed on the subject, but I will need to see non-local and more substantial media. Not WP:GNG at this point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-local", and "more substantial media" are not a part of GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to [15], there was a Coffey profile in the Courier Journal dated 20 February 2006 while she was in Washington, DC. The URL cited in the article doesn't work, which is not surprising since the Courier maintains a paywall. The URL is [16]. The source includes one quote from the article, that "CBS Newspath correspondent" is the "best job in the world". Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The local sources aren't enough to raise it to meet WP:GNG in my opinion because they are routine coverage in local sources. An announcement by a local media organization of who is going to be hosting the news being covered by local news papers shouldn't automatically grant one inclusion in Wikipedia. Common sense needs to apply here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 21 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) 02:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Goula[edit]

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

This is another Sander.v.Ginkel article moved out of draft space. The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NATHLETE, and WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~Being on a team doesn't really cut it, reasons above, this is the English wiki not the Greek, and needs way more expansion. If had more about her, and her career, I'd vote differently.~~ L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that she really took part in matches. And, according to the article , her career was limited to this tournament only. The Banner talk 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a goalkeeper in a world-medalist team after all; whether she entered the play or stayed on the bench is a bit unclear, but sources I found suggest she did. I tried to search for sources, but the language barrier is pretty high. Here's an interview with her in Waterpolo News.gr; a video interview on SportsFeed.gr where she carries the medal around the neck. Short piece in novasports.gr states that "Goula celebrated the 2011 World Championship with the national Greece in Shanghai." this piece in Pisina.net is about her difficulties to find a club for this season as she's tied to her duties in the Navy. So there's steady coverage about her career over the years. No such user (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...This article on Greek Swimming Federation website is entirely about her. Another interview for a Greek specialized website. In sum, I think the available material demonstrates notability and allows writing a shortish verifiable article. No such user (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep meets WP:SPORTCRIT per a cursory US-based Google search and refs provided by No such user. Hmlarson (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relisted due to reasons brought up,a nd new understanding of CA7M. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:25, 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 06:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being goalkeeper on a world medalist team combined with the sources is enough to get her past WP:GNG in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 21 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) 02:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Senić[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 based on an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with media coverage such as [17] Nfitz (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 09:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; Nfitz provided a good source but I can't find any other in depth coverage Spiderone 10:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, one good source but that's it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. If they actually play for OFK Beograd or Red Star Belgrade, then they will be notable enough, and this article should then, and only then, be undeleted/recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - For failing WP:NFOOTY. While this player does play in a professional league, he has yet to play for them. Seems WP:TOOSOON and can always be re-created in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for footballers. The media coverage is not at a level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English translations of the Quran[edit]

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

WP:NOT a list, there's already List_of_translations_of_the_Quran and this doesn't add anything other than advertising (and probably never will) MrHarambe (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the reason it was created is because List_of_translations_of_the_Quran became too long? -- See Bible translations into English and Jewish_English_Bible_translations (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not favoring deletion. English translations of Quran are many and varied, so a separate article discussing all nuances involved is appropriate. Perhaps the english section of the List article can be shortened to include only salient representatives of the different sorts of translations of this difficult text.Ernobe (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly what's modeled at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and This is the parent for a rather well-defined structure at Category:English translations of the Quran, which exists separate and apart form any other article about translations. The sources here are above and beyond minimums needed. I'm not sure what "advertising" exists here, but if there is any the solution is editing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can be an exhaustive list of English translations, with the general list of translations listing only major ones, or all, or otherwise. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't favour aiming for an exhaustive list (WP:NOT), but there is material for an article based on the eight translations already with a WP article, and on sources commenting on these and others: Noyster (talk), 12:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- True, You are. I agree. Maybe the exhaustive part was too much. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like quite a reasonable article to have. --do ncr am 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a useful spinoff of the longer, all-language list. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Choudhary.[edit]

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

No indication that he meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. GAB^gab 04:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are not reliable and a quick internet search yields nothing notable Spiderone 11:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is sourced mostly to primary sources like YouTube videos and his own self-published Facebook page, with no indication of reliable sources and no claim of notability strong enough to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not reliably sourced and no reliable source that indicates the artist is notable. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: The creator of this article ItsMyClub (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singer Jethu Sisodiya. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 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) 02:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashless Transaction (India)[edit]

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

No evidence that this requires a standalone article: what little coverage there is can easily be included in Premiership of Narendra Modi. We cannot and should not have a separate article about every policy, initiative, and soundbyte from every world leader. Furthermore, the article seems to consist largely of original research, or at the very least unsourced statements. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a bit of WP:SYNTH put together from two pieces of policy, and mostly unsourced. Anything that is properly sourced and of sufficient note can go in the Premiership of Narendra Modi article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment clearly is WP:OVERZEALOUS of every policy, initiative, and soundbyte from every world leader having a separate article! Cashless Transaction is a term cited daily in India; National Media, Forums, Vans parading the streets of cities in India ^[1] have Cashless Transaction plastered on them as a mobile encyclopaedia which travels around the City. The article has much room for improvement, it is largely WP:INDY sources that will be developed as the initiative and awareness increases, it is an article to enrich the lives of Indians. There needs to be amendments to historical references too ^[2] to avoid WP:SHAREDNAME from archaic translations in India, cultural references ^[3] and systems which deserve a place on the Indian E-Commerce^[4] system which is still under development compared to ^[5] which has an article directly linked to an E-Commerce Subject ^[6] with no argument for deletion. This article should not be prematurely deleted or referenced to two world leaders WP:OCASSOC in particular the Premiership of Narendra Modi article. Keeping. --Snoop1080p (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Another one from the stable of Junosoon! WP:SYNTH and a majority of statements being unsourced--all support the nom's proposal for the article to be deleted.At the least some content can be selectively merged with Premiership of Narendra Modi.Winged Blades^Godric 04:35, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuantAlea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:50, 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 03:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am seeing nothing to indicate that this company is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Alea GPU created by the same single-purpose account. Way too soon, since no notability yet demonstrated. W Nowicki (talk) 20:48, 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) 02:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alea GPU[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging PamD, nominator of the first AfD, who withdrew the AfD and added some sources. There is a PR piece on an NVIDIA site; not a notability indication since it is written by the company, though, so delete. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too tiny of a niche to meet notability threshold. This and QuantAlea were created by single-purpose account Gpuwiz who only edited for four days. Too Soon. W Nowicki (talk) 20:55, 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) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Yoman[edit]

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

I can find no 3rd-party coverage at all. Fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. This article was created on 27 June 2014, by an editor whose talk page includes a WP:CSD notice dated 23 June 2014 for an article with the same title. Narky Blert (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a young (23 y.o.) new filmmaker without any feature films to his credit, and no possible sources to add from Google news/papers. It just seems to be too soon in his career. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearian. CaseeArt ^Talk 03:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yoman may eventually be a notable filmmaker, but he is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 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. czar 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Asia / Eastern Europe[edit]

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

There is apparently no source for putting these four countries together in one region. Various sources are mentioned in the article for different regional classifications. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. it's totally unclear why anyone would group these nations together. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOR. No evidence anyone but article creator thinks this assemblage of countries is a recognized region. Their own references are evidence against the existence of this as a viable region. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 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 Jakku. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niima Outpost[edit]

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

I propose this either be deleted or redirected to Jakku. A place on a fictional planet does not meet WP:GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A1 and G2. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakku. Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No harm done in redirecting to Jakku. Definitely doesn't warrant its own article. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jakku per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline: Niima Outpost is mentioned as part of the Star Wars franchise, but not nearly enough to suggest it is notable for a stand-alone article. Since it is a fictional place on the fictional planet Jakku, a categorised ((R from fictional place)), in this case with the optional parameter set: ((R from fictional place|Star Wars)), to the article Jakku is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Jakku per Sam Sailor comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 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 speedy delete. WP:G7 speedy after counseling about shared accounts. Miniapolis 17:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Duck Post[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first experience with this format, I have assigned it as a project to an advanced student in my IT class. Can you please tell me what we've missed in the creation of this page so that I can guide her on correcting her insertion?

TareaEurope (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Tarea[reply]

TareaEurope, for starters, please place comments in chronological order per WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, if this is the work of "an advanced student in my IT class" I'm assuming it's at the high school level. The problem here is that it fails to meet WP:ORG from what I can see. What's missing is coverage from independent WP:Reliable sources that would establish notability -- and I don't think it's out there, based on my Gsearch. Sorry. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications. I'll sit with her and go over this in the morning, hopefully she'll be able to find the supporting data you require. Correcting the organization should clearly not be an issue. I appreciate the feedback. TareaEurope (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Tarea[reply]

Actually, I think it will be an issue. Because when I did a Google News Search there was virtually nothing. But yes, see what you and your student can turn up, in either news coverage or perhaps Google books. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, your unsupported statement above that you are an educator and this is somehow the joint work of you and a pupil of yours violates WP:ROLE. We do not permit shared use accounts. This does not seem to be an article that has come through Wikipedia:Education program. There's a number of issues raised, in my mind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked my student to look into links that would support notability. She asked if they must be in English. My assumption is yes, but am I correct in that? I am not familiar with the Education program, I will look into it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TareaEurope (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the links do not have to be in English - but they must exist and be verifiable. The also must pass WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, thank you for the feedback, I appreciate you taking the time to give it. My student has not found anything that will satisfy the requirements. I think that this has served as a good lesson, though! I'lll have her find independent support to add to other pages for a while as an alternative to this assignment. Thanks once more, enjoy your weekends.TareaEurope (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this truly odd case, the teacher now admits -- on behalf of both of them -- that this is not notable. I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the article accordingly. @TareaEurope:, obviously, your student has to start making her own edits via her own account -- not yours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Fonseka[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject is a non notable productivity consultant. The article borders on self promotion. The sources cited are either articles written by the subject (no independent comment or review) or links to the companies he's worked for. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notab le , and basically promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 21 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) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henning Dyngvold[edit]

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

Biography of a composer and reality TV participant. I find no coverage of him at all in secondary sources, but quite a few primary sources. His claim to notability as a composer is a song that was at number 19 on a list of the most frequently played songs on a Norwegian radio show in 2008 (previously wrongly credited in the article as one of the most frequently played songs on a radio channel). However, the sources do not mention his name - there's no particular reason to believe he is not the composer of the song, but the notability claim is extremely weak given that his name is not to be found, and given that the song itself did not chart.

The reality TV claim to notability is based on his participating in an entrepreneur contest on Norwegian TV and ending up in 5th place. He was also part of a panel of people who commented on the Norwegian parliamentary election in 2009, but again, that doesn't confer any particular notability when he was never actually given significant coverage in independent sources.

The article was created by a known paid editor (now blocked). It is also relevant to mention that the article about him was deleted as non-notable on no.wikipedia in 2014. Different Wikipedia versions have different notability criteria, but still. bonadea contributions talk 10:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This composer meet the wikipedia Notability criteria for three reasons. First is that he has composed the music identity for a major television network (TV 2) for several years. This is the largest commercial televison network in Norway, Second is that he has composed the song waschera witch was many months on the national charts NRK MP3.

Third is that he composed the music for "breaking borders" on travel channel and My mercy box witch has been broadcasted in the whole of europe and USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norsktv (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Norsktv (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

NRK mP3 is not a national chart, it is a radio channel. And Waschera was the 19th most played song in 2008 on "Svisj", which is one of the shows on that channel; it did not feature on the main top-20 list for the channel as a whole. --bonadea contributions talk 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the topic might be notable as the article claims Dyngvold to have produced a notable film, but I find it to be unverifiable. - TheMagnificentist 19:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it say that he has produced a film, though? I think the claims are mainly that he has composed music for films (as well as for a "channel identity", which I think is some kind of promotional material for a TV channel, but I'm not sure). Composing for a notable film doesn't make him notable (just like every actor in a notable film is not automatically notable...) If he were a producer that might make it different, I agree. --bonadea contributions talk 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say he produced a film, let alone a notable one. And in most cases it would not help much, film producers, as well as so many other people working behind the scene in cinema, are exceedingly difficult to source. Unfortunately. — Sam Sailor 00:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent some time on this subject the other day, and I couldn't find a source that's not already in the article, and we are far away from both WP:GNG/WP:BASIC as well as any criterion in WP:MUSBIO. Delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 00:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - copy-paste from my talk page: "I just scrolled through the filmography section in the article and randomly went to a movie article to see his role. There I saw he was credited as the producer. That's all that happened. I still the thought the article should be deleted but the production credit might have glimpse of sign that the topic may be notable, that's why it's a "weak delete" from me". - TheMagnificentist 06:51, 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) 02:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YRU-Up[edit]

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

Non-notable local series; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources failing WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons set out above. Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local TV show that doesn't meet our notability criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 21 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) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nassir El-Assaad[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 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 ) 04:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cedar Revolution. I have not found any reliable references in English, but what I have found pointed to the article subject's involvement in that event. I suspect searching in French and Arabic sources would provide better results, but because of the variability of transliterating Arabic names to English search terms, my ability to search correctly is limited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eggishorn: Normally I would be all right with considering a redirect, but the unsourced article nominated for deletion does not verify his involvement with the The Cedar Revolution, and the proposed redirect target has no mention of him. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:, Usually I don't advocate redirects without that information but in this particular case, my searches have given me the distinct impression that I'm being too parochial. Even if I don't think any one individual source counts as WP:RS for notability purposes, there's enough in sum to give me the belief that non-English sources probably do exist. Perhaps the correct thing is to delete and hope those with access and understanding of such putative sources re-create it. Thanks for the reply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:16, 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) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benas B-Money Banda[edit]

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

Non-notable person WP:TOOSOON applies. Flat Out (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is press coverage, but I'm not convinced that the subject area covered amounts to more than local human interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 21 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) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mender[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Non-notable recent open source software that fails WP:GNG. I wish there was more that I could say about it, but it just seems to be a small open source project. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. MereTechnicality ⚙ 02:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mention of notability whatsoever, fails WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added references to coverage by third parties at conferences as well as a third-party survey of embedded updaters. Also, try to google "embedded linux update" if you still have doubts of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtreme2k14 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources are weak, either being self-citations or Github, etc. Article is advertorially toned and the content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn and closing based on WP:SNOW, as WP:SK notes that an AfD cannot be closed as speedy keep if there is a delete !vote. The outcome is effectively the same. Kurykh (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Davis[edit]

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

The article is an example of Wikipedia:BIO1E. Although her plane crash has been covered by New York Times and Los Angeles Times, I cannot find any articles that describe her works prior to her death. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - After doing a bit more digging, I finally found some reviews of her first work, "Circling the Drain", dating 1999. These include sources from "Los Angeles Times", "New York Times", and "Salon". Furthermore, in an article posted on Sun-Sentinel, Davis appeared in many magazines, including "Esquire" and "Seventeen". Finally, Davis appeared in a 2003 interview for Indy Week prior to her death, as seen here. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's not BLP1E because she isn't alive. However, WP:BIO1E is definitely in case here. If this plane crash has its own article, perhaps this could be added there. MereTechnicality ⚙ 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MereTechnicality: I fixed the category from BLP1E to BIO1E. Also, the incident was mentioned in the Asheville Regional Airport page since she and her family died 18 miles from the airport. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep with kudos to User:Yoshiman6464. This appears to have been a good faith nomination of a poorly sourced article that gave the appearance of BIO1E, but Nom double-checked and has now sourced the article strongly, showing that Davis had drawn sufficient critical attention to pass WP:AUTHOR before her tragic, early death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due.com[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. WP:PROMO article of a company with little in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Most of the sources available are in routine lists of business software, and the one source the article creator added was by a marketing firm CEO to Entrepreneur, which contained a disclaimer at the bottom that Due.com was a content partner. I couldn't find sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SEO/WP:BUZZWORD-filled article which doesn't have the WP:N to back it up. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion in lists doesn't constitute a reliable independent 3rd party source as per WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:10, 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) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Jendrick[edit]

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

Article written as if it was a promotional blog for the books Jendrick has written. Nothing in the refs conveys any sense of notability - mostly links to Google books . The SPA author of this article removed an earlier PROD without providing any better evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guideline for authors, as well as the general notability guideline. schetm (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google links appear to be bibliographies of other books that the author is cited in, which would give credit to the author being notable and referenced. Author is important to the doping-in-sports debate and has been in media as a subject expert, further adding notability. Article seems to just need improvement. Removed a quote from a magazine review that seemed directed toward a particular book's sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editsatnight (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please read general notability guielines for a clear understanding of what is required. Being mentioned in others books does not inherently demonstrate notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Editsatnight: The article as presently written will be deleted. However, you could ask to have it moved to a draft on your page, where you could try to bring it up to standard. I recommend that you read all of the advice pages on how to create a page and on what sort of sources a individual needs pass our notability standards. And I also recommend that you spend a little time editing, It is the best way to learn how wikipedia works. Then try reading, and maybe improving, articles on swimming, writers who write about sports, or other topics that interest you. At that point, you will either see that the kind of sources necessary to build a page for Jendrick are lacking, or you will know how to write a proper, well-sourced page. You can make an offer here, and see if other editors agree to allow you to move this page to a draft. Good luck and I hope that you will join us and make the effort to become a capable editor here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same suggestion to @Snapsatfish6:, the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While his wife is notable since she was an olympian, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 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 speedy delete. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gap (Osmond Degwell song)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable song by completely non-notable person who is using Wikipedia for promotion.

Also, although the copyright owner has given permission for use in Wikipedia, he has not given proper permission under the proper copyleft, and therefore this qualifies for G12. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright. And obviously delete out of sheer lack of notability. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Artist using Wikipedia for promotion, non-notable song. I would suggest A7-song but the artist's page does exist (though it was created by him); copyright issues, however, are still in place. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:06, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Blond[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits. Claimed award is not well-known or significant merely because it was given out at the same trade show, but by a different awardgiver, as a more notable award. PROD removed without substantive justification or nontrivial article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't won any significant awards, no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:44, 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) 03:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echilamvayal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure if this is a hoax or just really obscure, but I can't find any reliable evidence that this is an actual village. I can find evidence of a Echilamvayal Library and a Echilamvayal Bus Stop, but I'm not sure if they are part of a village by this name. A Google search brings up mostly Wikipedia mirrors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karinkuzhi. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karinkuzhi‎, note that this was created by the same editor, who has no other edits, the co-ordinates listed in the article do not correspond to a place by this name. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this helps at all, but Bing maps shows it as a village in India, though it also links to this article. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a complete hoax and the place appears to be a real locality alternately spelled Eachilamvayal. It comes up in postal databases associated with with Vellur/Vellora, but matching hits conflict. However it is not on any of the 4 village lists from the Kannur district website. I haven't found anything to verify the place as an independent settlement. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 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.