< 16 February	18 February >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nischal Tiwari[edit]

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

Promotional page, created by the same person or an affiliate (User:Nischal007). No claims of significance are verified by any reliable sources. Of the 5 references, 4 are self published. External links are full of social media pages. Jevansen (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see this as having an overly promotional tone, but it's certainly a vanity page, and I find no evidence of the subject meeting any inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cann't find reliable source.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:52, 24 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. Consensus is to delete. Article can be recreated as a draft. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Bride[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is a non-notable movie, characterized by its producers as "ultra-low budget", that has not even begun principal photography. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, in particular WP:NFF, which states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Principal photography not yet begun, and is not scheduled until next month. It's WP:CRYSTAL to presume that once filmed and released, it will get significant coverage from unaffiliated independent sources. It's not clear that a theatrical release is planned (although the overcrowding page refers to a planned L.A. premiere); a DVD is planned, and it may well be a direct-to-DVD movie.

I'm going to be a little verbose here, given the prior PROD and the subsequent discussions with the principal editor.

I PRODded it about a week ago, and it was dePRODded by its principal editor, Lyrda (talk · contribs). I will note that in my PROD, I had construed its crowdfunding effort to be to raise funds to make the film. Lyrda has pointed out that the crowdfunding effort was not to raise money to make the film, but to pay for acting coaching for the child actress Kristina Pimenova.

That being said, there still is no indication of notability. Nearly all the references in the article are to material generated by the production itself: Reigning Entertainment, the production company; its Indiegogo crowdfunding page; a quotation of the film's press release at Horror Movies CA; the film's casting call notice at backstage.com; the film's "official newsletter"; and the film's facebook page.

There are three sources that are, on their face, independent of the subject, but provide no basis for notability: A paywalled Posh Kids Magazine article is cited for the proposition that the child-model who stars in the film is making a career move into acting; a decaymag.com article that reports on the crowdfunding effort, but appears to be just a blog; and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for the inconsequential fact that the production company does, in fact, exist and is incorporated in the state.

None of this adds up to notability.

The IMDB page for the movie has very little information on it; IMDb does not carry full entries for films in pre-production, pretty much for the same reasons Wikipedia normally does not.

The principal editor is a WP:SPA account, whose edits have concentrated on this article, a now-deleted article on its actress Kristina Pimenova, and that article's AfD. When I inquired as to a conflict of interest, she said no, and I take her at her word.

There's more discussion on the article's talk page, which may be informative.

I want to note that this AfD is not reflective on the principal editor or her work; it is merely an effort to limit Wikpedia's coverage to notable material. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not write the deleted article Kristina Pimenova, which was in poor shape. Neither am I a single-purpose account. I have started two articles, edited and commented on ten others, and participated in project and help discussions. Not that there is anything wrong with editors focusing on a single topic, as proposer seems to suggest. Furthermore, to randomly suggest that just because a new user began at topic X, they must have a conflict of interest with topic X, is uncivil and no testimony of good faith. Can we please discuss the article without attempts to put the editor in a bad light? Lyrda (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMDb carries whatever people enter into it and gets accepted. It does not distinguish in that regard between films by stage of development. There is more information in IMDb-pro, but IMDb is not put forward as the source of this article. Instead, there are nine other sources. Lyrda (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a low-budget film, not an 'ultra-low-budget film' whatever that may be. Proposer wants to suggest that this is an amateur project. It is not, this is a professional movie with notable, prize-winning producers and cast. Lyrda (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Proposer failed to notify Wikiproject Film even though participants are aware of this article. It is therefore unlikely that this proposal will attract sufficient attention from users familiar with notability and guidance relating to this topic. Lyrda (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to notify relevant Wikiprojects when an Article for Deletion discussion is started. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonetheless the appropriate and civil course of action. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors Lyrda (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to what proposer repeatedly suggests, I did not start this article gazing into the future. In my opinion the topic is already notable in this stage of development, based on the notability of the people involved and evidenced by sources included and not included (social media buzz) in the article. Lyrda (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A film that may or may not be in production, supported by references that do not collectively help the subject to meet the General Notability Guideline. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON - if the film is ever released, and if it gets a sufficient quantity of coverage in reliable, independent sources (not IMDB, Backstage or other self-published sources) then I look forward to reading about it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Backstage, Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA and Posh Kids Magazine are all reliable, independent sources. At Backstage, a team of casting experts review each casting notice posted to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the project. Lyrda (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a Casting Notice, which cannot be considered Independent by any stretch of the imagination. Would the casting notice be there if the people involved with the project hadn't written it? No it wouldn't. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage reviews all notices and deletes entries of insufficient quality. That's what makes it independent and why I included it as a source, rather than e.g. exploretalent.com. Please note that there are three more independent sources as well. Lyrda (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you're clearly an editor with an undeclared Conflict of Interest, the time I'm going to spend responding to you is going to be very limited. You'll get a lot more time & good faith from me if you read WP:COI and declare your Conflict of Interest openly and honestly. Anyway, the sources: Source 1 - Company website - not independent. Source 2 - Indiegogo crowdfunding project - not independent. Source 3 - report on crowdfunding campaign written by someone who states they are an "independent movie blogger" - fails WP:RS. Source 4 - this source is not about the film. Source 5 - press release - not independent. Source 6 - casting call - not independent. Source 7 - newsletter written by the company - not independent. Source 8 - about the setting up of a company - not about the film itself. Source 9 - a Facebook post - fails WP:RS. That's really all I have to say about the sourcing - read through WP:RS yourself if you have any queries. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we're back at attacking the editor. Meanwhile, it's obvious then that you have no idea of Wikipedia's key concepts, nor do you seem familiar with the topic. You appear to be a hit-and-run deletionist, just like proposer, so I'm clearly wasting my time here. Lyrda (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address what I've said. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say anything coherent. Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you still think Backstage, who have been in business for 50 years, is not independent despite its review board. Lyrda (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask that you remain civil during this discussion - ad hominem isn't your friend here. Anyway, as I've already pointed out, the casting call posted by the company in Backstage is not an independent source because it was posted by the company. The fact that it has been checked by Backstage before they agreed to post it is not a factor. I've pointed out WP:RS to you twice now - you should read it before asking anything further about sources because it answers every possible query. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to stop attacking me, then. The available guidance on independence is WP:IS, an essay, not WP:RS, a guideline. Bottom line is that independence pertains to the source, not the content or how it got there. Backstage reviews all entries, that's all that matters. IMDb does not. Similarly, a collective of film reviewers that decide to build on some press releases, but not others, is also an independent source. Reliability is another matter. Backstage is reliable because it has a reputation of good fact-checking. Lyrda (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fixate on whether or not a Casting Call is a reliable, independent source. The simple fact is, the General Notability Guideline hasn't been met. This isn't personal, so behaving like it is won't help matters. If you can improve the article without using unreliable, non-independent sources then do so. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more civil for you to say "OK, you've convinced me about Backstage, how about the rest." Perhaps you could tell me why, in your opinion, Posh Kids Magazine is neither reliable nor independent? Also, notability of the topic is unrelated to the current state of the article, and it's not my personal burden either to improve it. Lyrda (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't convinced me. A casting call, written by the company producing a film, is never - under any circumstances - an independent, reliable source. I hope that clears up any apparent confusion. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the casting call itself is dependent, just like the press release (they're both still reliable though). The source, however, is not the casting call, but Backstage. Backstage is independent. How about Posh Kids Magazine? Lyrda (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've already answered. "Source 4 - this source is not about the film" Exemplo347 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be, as long as it's relevant to the topic. Lyrda (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you link to a policy or guideline that supports this? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you? You're the one making a claim that goes against common sense. Hint: it's not in WP:RS. Lyrda (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Clearly the article creator is taking this a bit too personally. I'd suggest stepping back from this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. Look, you are perfectly welcome to simply state: "There is coverage, but in my opinion it's not significant enough." Instead you are continuously attacking the editor, and you come up with a series of questionable statements about sources that you are unable or unwilling to explain. Those are unacceptable tactics in a discussion, and should not be left unaddressed. Lyrda (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - going through the sources I came to the same conclusion as Exemplo347 above. Since they have already discussed each one of the sources I won't repeat what they already said; suffice it to say that neither WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG is met. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources are of pretty little consequence, and basically universally don't count as independent, secondary or reliable by Wikipedia standards, and I'm not finding really anything online that does. I appreciate Lyrda's enthusiasm, but they probably need a bit more experience, since a lot of their argument rests on fairly run-of-the-mill misunderstanding regarding what these types of terms specifically mean on Wikipedia, versus what they mean in a more general sense. I would encourage them to visit the Teahouse if they have specific questions or need particular guidance, and to take some time editing on subjects other than those that they very likely would not know existed in the first place if they did not have some sort of conflict of interest. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a conflict of interest with this topic, and everything I've said about sources is supported by existing guidance. Lyrda (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an explanation as to why you deem none of the nine sources reliable, since WP:RS seems to indicate that they are. This has not yet been discussed. Above we have only talked about independence. Lyrda (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This looks like a cut-and-dry case. Also, the article's principal editor doesn't (yet) have a complete understanding of WP:RS as has been made clear in comments above. Note that this deletion doesn't preclude the article coming back once reliable sources become available. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disheartening that people keep claiming that I don't understand WP:RS, yet nobody is willing to provide any insights. Surely, if sources are so cut-and-dryly unreliable, it should be easy enough to explain. Btw, if we end up with a conclusion to delete, please move it back to Draft instead, so I (and others) can keep working on it. Production starts in less than 3 weeks, new sources are bound to appear very soon. Lyrda (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would ordinarily be happy to discuss, but from what I gather above, there seems to be too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT coming from your corner. Also, I am convinced you actually haven't read through WP:RS because barely anything you have stated reflects it. I recommend actually reading it and asking questions at WP:Help desk or elsewhere on points that don't make complete sense. As for userfying or moving an article to draft, that option is certainly available to you. But on this "new sources are bound to appear very soon", I'd like to know where you buy your crystal balls. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, films that are talked about a lot even before production has started, will continue to get attention as development continues. Especially with a high-profile cast and notable producers. No crystal ball is needed for that, but it's allowed in this context (my personal expectation that there will be stuff to add to the article). I read WP:RS thoroughly many times over already before moving the article into main space. It contains no guidance with respect to independence, the only thing discussed so far. I am ready to discuss reliability. Please explain to me why, in your opinion, for instance, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is not a reliable source regarding the existence of a LLC. Lyrda (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your experience as you state it is irrelevant to the determinations made about notability. We will not litigate our policies/guidelines here. As for independence, I am satisfied that other experienced editors have explained this reasonably well to you, and that you refuse to acknowledge what is fairly straightforward. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please be aware that non-neutral canvassing appears to be taking place here. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this discussion to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film is not canvassing, nor is this a request for a particular outcome. Lyrda (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep came to the article for more information because I was just reading a news article today about the production. Wikipedia:Does deletion help?.--Moxy (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just another reprint of a press release, though. The article has to have secondary sources that talk specifically about the film, to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not here much at these deletion debates ..as an old timer this is a bad side of Wikipedia I try to avoid. Just have to say is it really best to leave our readers in the dark by deleting this article that clearly is getting views. Noting wrong ..as in non neutral etc.... just facts here. Not sure how giving our readers nothing will help them. Think of our readers always pls!! --Moxy (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grave damage from not having an article about a movie that hasn't even began shooting yet, especially for which there is no WP:RS. As always, this can be userfied or moved to draft in case RS begins appearing, and if/when the article is reinstated, our dear readers who we very much adore can read the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons Wikipedia is not the first stop for movie information...we are behind the rest of the world in this regard [1]. But you guys here deal with this all the time I guess and know best. As a history editor I find most movies sources low quality...so dont see a sourcing problem here news is news.-- Moxy (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a future movie site -- it is an encyclopedia with long-held standards for inclusion. Once this movie attains notability (if it does), we'll have an article for it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, a Category:Upcoming films with a multitude of entries, many of which have less information than this article. So clearly, a film doesn't have to be released in order to be notable. Lyrda (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That obscures the overall problem here, that this article has no WP:RS while other upcoming films do. My point is that we don't have articles for future films just because they exist. Also, your statement about other articles having "less information" is unfortunately entirely irrelevant to this AfD, and is frankly your personal opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss that please, because IMHO all the current sources are reliable. Lyrda (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Moxy: Please read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and especially, reliable sources. That article fails as a reliable source, the underpinning of notability, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deletion is an important way to keep Wikipedia from becoming a vehicle for promotion, a soapbox, or a collection of trivia. Tapered (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look @ What Wikipedia is not Tapered (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Posted Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_provided_for_The_Russian_Bride. Lyrda (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here from RSN. The reliability of sources when they are self-published is irrelevant for a *notability* discussion. Notability is demonstrated by *independant* reliable *secondary* sources on the subject. Primary sources (press releases, official websites, crowfunding pages etc) may be useable in the article but do not demonstrate notability (as every primary source thinks they are notable). At best there are passing mentions with no real coverage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability does not pertain to the press release, but to the previewers that used it. The same goes for the casting call (Backstage checks and reviews all entries and is considered very reliable). The article has five completely independent sources. Only one of them is indirect. Lyrda (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reprinting press releases is not significant coverage. At best there is enough sourcing to say 'this exists'. Not everything that exists has a wikipedia article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the significance of the coverage is indeed what this discussion should be about. But also, what about the involvement of notable people (several with their own Wikipedia article)? Does their notablity carry over, as I stated on the article's talk page? Lyrda (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair question. Unfortunately the answer is no - notability does not carry over. If this film had had significant importance in the career of any of the notable people involved it could have been mentioned in the article about them (with reliable independent sources, if any such are found), but at this point that does not appear to be the case. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, which I happen to disagree with. The film is certainly important in the career of Kristina Pimenova, see Posh Kids Magazine (hence its inclusion as a source). Lyrda (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you're going to have is that the Administrator who closes this discussion will agree with the long-standing consensus that these "essays", guidelines and policies represent. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator's only job is to establish if consensus has been reached. Please stop disrupting the flow of the discussion. Lyrda (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct - they will weigh the consensus of the discussion against the existing policies and guidelines, and will not take into account any personal opinions that do not align with the policies and guidelines that are relevant here - WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:AFD/AI. And WP:NFILM points the user to WP:N for upcoming films. Once again, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the actual content of policies and guidelines. Lyrda (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:NFF? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the guideline, for a change. Lyrda (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF is a guideline, and it says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Exemplo347 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films which says: "If the film fails to meet basic community-wide standards such as verifiability, notability, and no original research, it may be prodded, AfD'd, or speedy deleted, as appropriate." Lyrda (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've found something that will enable you to agree that this discussion is appropriate. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films: "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines. This may also include related articles which are primarily about the film's content, such as character pages. For these articles, the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot."Exemplo347 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that there were articles for parts 2 and 3 of The Hobbbit long before production. Whatever a guideline may say, the policy outranks it. That's why the project page points to it, and why I was discussing notability with other users, before you disrupted the process again. Lyrda (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting in an Article for Deletion discussion is never "disruption" - even if you don't like what the comments say. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in secondary sources and it does not comply with WP:NF. The only aspect which gave me pause to think is the involvement of Corbin Bernsen but not all his work is regarded as notable and it is unclear at this stage whether it's a notable aspect of his career. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least four notable people involved with the topic. For instance, producer Philip J Day has won many awards. Do you have a suggestion on what to do with the information if the article gets deleted? Add it to each of the separate articles? The film itself doesn't have to be notable to be added to existing articles. Lyrda (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above: no, not unless it is in fact an important/notable part of the person's career, and not unless there are reliable independent sources discussing the film and its importance for the producer/actor. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Bonadea here. Really though Lyrda, the answer to every question you have asked could have been found quite easily, by reading the links that people have been providing for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As established repeatedly above, the links provided by you never contained what you claimed. We have now arrived at discussing notabilty, after all your nonsense with incorrectly calling sources not independent. Lyrda (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside your ad hominem again, the link to WP:NFILM was provided very early on in this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But you should have mentioned WP:IS, which you conveniently forgot. Lyrda (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyrda it's clear the majority don't see the sources as making the article notable at this time. Not the end of the world.....just give it a few months till more is out about the film.--Moxy (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it's still early days. We haven't seen many film experts yet, who e.g. can confirm that Decay Magazine, Dread Central and Horror Movies CA are reliable and carry weight. And it's not a vote, consensus is built on arguments. You made a good argument about the page getting many visits. Lyrda (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just need time - The Russian Bride 2017/Кристина Пименова and Kristina Pimenova //the russian bride//--Moxy (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer and other clips have been viewed over 75.000 times already. Then again, editors opined that 4 million followers is still no indication of notability. Something is horribly wrong here. Lyrda (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have expanded and updated the article, and will of course continue to do so as I find more information. Lyrda (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Added a new source that appeared today on deadline.com. There are now 13 sources, 4 more than in the discussion above. Lyrda (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review of new sources 1 - From press release. 2 - From press release (the text "From Press Release" was the clue). 3 - Instagram hashtag search. 4 - Youtube search result. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They usually are. The point is, they see many press releases and find only some of them notable enough to deserve attention. And social media searches provide information on notability, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. Lyrda (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom; I don't have much to add to what I put in the nomination, but did want to address a couple things raised above.

IMDB's coverage of pre-production films is limited; and it distinguishes between pre-production (where "the project is financed, locations are being scouted, people are being hired and production is imminent with a fairly firm start date for filming") and development, i.e. earlier than pre-production. As a movie-specialized website, unlike Wikipedia, IMDB has a more liberal threshold for inclusion. More at [2].

The characterization as "ultra-low-budget" is not mine; it comes from the film's production company itself, from the casting call used as a reference in the article. SAG-AFTRA defines "low-budget" as "under $2.5 million" and "ultra-low-budget" as "under $250,000". TJRC (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the budget at the time of the casting call, before several investors joined. Lyrda (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From WP:WHYN: We require significant coverage in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. (my bold) The page is well beyond half a paragraph. It has more information already than many pages about released films (and attracts more views as well). So in terms of WP:N, the coverage is significant. I would like to know what WP:N criterion then, if any, is not yet met. Lyrda (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've skipped over this (also from WP:N) - "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you are the only one who claims the sources are not independent, and we have discussed that ad nauseam already. Lyrda (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see at least two other editors who have pointed out concerns about the independence of the sourcing. Have a read through this page again - I'm not "the only one" by any stretch of the imagination - putting your fingers in your ears & pretending you don't hear valid objections from experienced editors is a waste of your energy. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of view has been clear from the beginning, thanks. Lyrda (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view is this, and only this: I'm here to improve Wikipedia, as are most editors. If an article does not meet the General Notability Guideline and the specific additional notability criteria that apply to it (WP:NFILM in this case) then it has no place here. This isn't a personal thing - I've participated in a large number of these discussions, it's a routine process that has no reflection on the creators of articles. It's about policy, nothing more. But, I'm guessing you'll take this response personally too. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't pertain to the article, but to the topic. There is more information that I haven't been able to add yet because of this Afd. The topic needs to satisfy either WP:N or WP:NFILM, not both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. My point of view is that it easily satisfies WP:N. Lyrda (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood. WP:GNG is the one that must be satisfied. The others are just a bonus. Every single article that Wikipedia has must meet the threshold in the General Notability Guideline, it's not optional and I can't see how you can think that it is after it's been pointed out to you by so many people. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:N:: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and (...) (my bold). Lyrda (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the first part of WP:NFILM says exactly what the GNG says - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Come on now, be realistic. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important not to confuse a presumption of notability with a determination of notability. A presumption just provides a starting point; it's not a conclusion. Presumptions can be rebutted. A subject that is presumed notable may not, on examination, be notable. It's not by any means a guarantee. All persons charged with crimes start out with a presumption of innocence, yet a large number of them are found guilty. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Sometimes there are lots of IRS's but without any encyclopedic content. Lyrda (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced that these sources provide the independent in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG. -KH-1 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not ask for in-depth coverage, only for significant coverage. WP:RS specifies when it's significant, too: an article longer than a single paragraph must be possible. The article is already much longer than that. Lyrda (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the discussion above. @Lyrda: I admire your persistence, and I am sure this is going to be an excellent film--I might even go see it. But we are not here to promote the film. I suggest you: (1) copy all of the Wikitext here (and at the article) to your sandbox before it gets deleted, which almost surely is going to happen, no matter how much more your push (2) Look at the films that *have* passed WP:AfC and survived WP:AfD and see what sources were necessary to keep them alive. At some point this film might get the WP:RS it needs, so if you do that, then you'll know what is required and you can submit it to WP:AfC and see if you can get it approved then. I suggest you thank everyone for their time considering your article, apologize for any frustration you might have caused, promise to do some of what I suggest, and it will likely be well received. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you eventually get what you are looking for and don't get too frustrated... --David Tornheim (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of views[edit]

There seems to be agreement that the article is well-formed and neutrally written, and contains verifiable facts.
There seems to be agreement that the topic (an upcoming film, yet to be produced and released) fails WP:NFILM.
In discussion is therefore whether the topic satisfies WP:N, and since no other specific guideline applies, therefore WP:GNG.
To satisfy WP:GNG, i.e. to be considered notable, the topic (not: the article) needs sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to enable the writing of an article, rather than just a few lines.
The sources originally include Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA, Posh Kids Magazine.
New sources added during this Afd include Deadline Hollywood, Dread Central.
~~Exemplo347 believes that none of the sources is independent.~~Struck this disingenuous summary. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Stevietheman thinks that none of the sources is reliable.
Timothyjosephwood judges the sources to be of little consequence.
Bonadea and Only in death claim a lack of secondary sources.
TJRC^[disputed] and Betty Logan are of the opinion that the sources provide insufficient independent, reliable coverage.
Moxie sees nothing wrong with the sources and considers the topic notable, also because of the number of page views.
Lyrda has the view that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and finds the topic notable.

Except for Exemplo347's view, there has been very little discussion and much unwillingness to elaborate. The expanded version of the article has not been seen by most participants. Note that a mention in Deadline Hollywood is a big thing, their article has been copied dozens of times within 24 hours. Lyrda (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an accurate summary of at least my position, as stated here and on the talk page. I have not seen any significant coverage of the film in sources unrelated to the film. Almost all the sources are from the producers, either directly or indirectly by quoting material provided by producers. There are a few reliable or presumably reliable sources, but they aren't on the film. For example, the fact that the production company is licensed to do business in the state and reflected as such in the state's roster of companies has nothing to do with the film. The fact that the model who is the actress in the film said in an interview that she wanted to go into acting has nothing to do with the film. All the sources that are actually about the film are from the film. In short, my position is that the film has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'll not specifically comment on the accuracy of Lyrda's characterization of the other editors' positions; but in general, I would encourage the closing admin to look to the editors' own comments, and not the putative summary above. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Lyrda (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not an accurate summary. I don't think this summary adds anything useful, except a call to all the other editors to come in and have a dispute within a dispute. I'm not going to continue that further. I'll simply note it here and rely on the closing admin to look to the actual editors' comments rather than a characterization made by an involved and entrenched editor. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you're back at attacking the editor. Lyrda (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I do not agree to having my words paraphrased and interpreted, and I also don't agree with the actual interpretation. However, I wholly trust that the reviewing administrator will disregard secondary interpretations and look at what each participant in the discussion has actually posted. --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. This was hard to follow on PC and is almost indecipherable on mobile. Definitely my bad for not watchlist in this and replying to the follow up questions. I'll try to re-review things, but assuming the trend does swing toward delete, this might be a really good candidate for moving to a draft rather than deleting. Being an unreleased film, when this discussion happens may be just as important as anything else, and it may easily pass in a few months or a year. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Because several new sources have appeared during this Afd, and most participants haven't commented on the expanded version of the article, I propose to let the Afd run for another week. I hope that we can then discuss the reliability and significance of the sources, which hasn't happened yet, perhaps on a source-by-source basis. Now that we're here, we might as well be thorough. Otherwise we may need to do it all over again a few weeks from now. Lyrda (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors are simply refraining from bludgeoning the process. It's not at all unusual for an article to continue to be edited during the AFD process. The basis for the AFD is not, after all the state of the article, but the notability of the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the notability of the topic has increased during the Afd due to e.g. the Deadline Hollywood source, which didn't exist until yesterday. Lyrda (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dragging out the process. The "new source" the author mentions is yet another press release. My objections have been made very clear - a failure of the subject to meet the GNG (not purely limited to independence, but also the reliability of the sources and the significance of the coverage) and WP:NFF (no new film that has not yet commenced principal photography can meet WP:NFF). That, my esteemed fellow editors, is an accurate summary of my opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, WP:NFF is irrelevant. Obviously WP:NFILM cannot be satisfied since it's for films that have been released, you don't have to repeat that over and over. Looking at WP:GNG, can you please specify which sources you consider unreliable, so we can finally begin to discuss that? Lyrda (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My objections to each source have been pointed out already in this discussion. If you want to argue about them again, save some time and re-read your own responses to me in your head. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections were about independence. You didn't get much support for that, so indeed we do not need to discuss that again (you are still confusing source with source material). I was asking about reliability since you just brought that up. Lyrda (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment from 5 days ago points out a number of unreliable sources. Read through the page again, have fun - I'm not repeating myself again just to get the same "La la la!!! I can't hear you!!" response. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there we go again, attacking the editor. You mentioned two, with little explanation, so I will assume then that it's just about these two, Decay Magazine and Facebook. Lyrda (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assume anything you want - the closing Administrator will read through everything thoroughly. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability discussion[edit]

Facebook[edit]

Unreliable according to Examplo347, but that is not in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE, which even explicitly mentions Facebook. The source is only used to establish the existence of the trailer, i.e. information about themselves. Lyrda (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decay Magazine[edit]

Unreliable according to Examplo347, who says it's a random blogger. It is not, Decay Magazine is a venue that specializes in crowdfunding campaign news and indie genre film analysis. The author is a staff correspondent. They may not be the New York Times, but they don't have a poor reputation for fact-checking. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. The source is only used to cite their comment on the film's theme. Lyrda (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is some useful input now at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Lyrda (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources cited not reliable. Search tools produce no dedicated articles/websites from a reliable source. Not notable. PLEASE delete before this AfD page eats up all of Wikipedia's bandwidth. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate? Why, for instance, do you think that Deadline Hollywood is unreliable? Why does reliability depend on 'dedication' to the topic? This is not a vote. Lyrda (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lyrda's verbose and endless postings are approaching disruptive editing. Tapered (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[edit]

Official websites are often poor sources for the plot of any given work, as they lack in detail and may have a promotional tone. As the company's identification of its own productions, they may be used as primary sources. Primary sources are not banned, but should be used with caution.
Decay is an online magazine, established in 2014. It describes itself as a magazine devoted to the horror, thriller and sci-fi genres. Based on the contents, it also includes some fantasy topics. It has sections on Conan the Barbarian, part of the sword and sorcery subgenre. I am not certain if it counts as a reliable source, but I do not see anything particularly objectionable here.
Posh Kids is a magazine devoted to fashion, entertainment, and lifestyle. Nothing too unusual here, and it seems to have interviews with a number of actors.
Horror Movies CA is a website devoted to horror films, established in 2005. It has numerous news article about the genre, a number of reviews, and articles on related topics. I am not certain who owns the website. I don't see ownership information.
Backstage (magazine) might be a better source. Established in 1960, it is an entertainment industry-related magazine. Its intended audience is not the general public, but people already working in film, television, and theatre who are seeking information on casting, job opportunities, and career advice.
Official newsletters are primary sources and may be biased or unreliable. On the topic of funding, there have been cases where film companies published inaccurate information on their funding sources, overstated or understated their budgets, and broke a number of industry regulations when in came to their accounting. Several of our articles on film companies focus on cases which went to court, or led to the company's demise.
The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is a primary source on employment, professional licensing, construction, and commerce in the state of Michigan. I would consider it reliable, but it is not exactly a specialized resource on film.
I may be incorrect here, but I have been working on film articles for a number of years. Most of our film articles do not even mention information on the trailer of any given film. I am not certain why should we include trailer information here. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) copied from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Lyrda (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Do you agree with the re-posting of your comments from the RSN into this discussion here? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Movies CA[edit]

Founder and team are mentioned here. Same type of source as Decay Magazine, but it has been around longer and is a size larger. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. Lyrda (talk) 11:22, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Jean McCabe[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an artist, which states and single-sources the fact that she exists but fails to contain any actual substance beyond the fact that she exists. There's the generic claim that she's "award-winning", which is enough of a claim of significance to stave off speedy deletion, but the article fails to name or source what award(s) she purportedly won. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which an artist becomes entitled to have an article just because she exists -- an actual notability claim, and the reliable sourcing to support it, have to be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a mention of her here, she made the cover to Joel Baetz (2009). Canadian Poetry from World War I: An Anthology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-543171-1., and she's mentioned in Repère (in French). Vol. 2. Services documentaires Multimedia. 2005. pp. 1435–., but that's about it. Fails [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:NARTIST]], del per policy. — Sam Sailor 04:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant sources found that would establish WP:GNG. BTW, John Pack Lambert, have you considered including a reason in your comment now and then, instead of just "non-notable"? Just curious. 198.58.162.176 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing in the article to give a hint to notability, and I am not finding enough to establish notability as an artist or under WP:GNG from the links at the top of the page. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 24 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 Deleted as A7 by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Training Academy[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. I had trouble finding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:A7 - I'm not sure why an AfD discussion was started, when there's a Speedy Deletion tag already present at the top of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination and the SD nomination happened virtually simultaneously. The SD tag wasn't there when I hit the XFD button in Twinkle. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, early close as falls under WP:A7 – in reply to the comment above, Ahecht was probably setting up this AfD while the Speedy tag was put up. J 947 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no notability, promotional. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Request for closure - article has been speedily deleted - I'd do it myself but I've !voted, so someone uninvolved needs to do it. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:20, 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 redirect to Coromantee#1736 Antigua slave rebellion. It's up to editors whether there are enough sources for a mention of this person in this or another article, but we seem to have consensus that there's not enough sourcing for an article. Sandstein 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto Jack[edit]

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

Non-notable historical person. Most of the article consists of un-cited general statements about Black Irish people in general, or the Klass plot in general. No one named "Mulatto Jack" is even mentioned in the sources cited in the "references" section, and the quotation in the section titled "Jack's fate" appears to be the full extent of the historical record of this person. This falls far short of what would be required for notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or possibly redirect to Coromantee#1736 Antigua slave rebellion. Gaspar does talk about him, perhaps not in the sources cited but multiple times in Gaspar, David Barry. Bondmen and rebels: A study of master-slave relations in Antigua. Duke University Press, 1993. If/when an article is written about the 1736 Antiqua slave rebellion, that would be the sensible direction for a redirect to point. However, other Mulatto Jack's exist, google books gives a number of references to a child of the Custis family (in-laws to the first US president), so I don't know if a redirect makes sense given that as a search term, either individual could be meant, and redirecting could confuse the reader more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How did you come across this article, Fyddlestix? Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jack is indeed mentioned in the sources, Fyddlestix '20. iii. Antigua, 30 December 1736. ... A person called Mulatto Jack was brought before us as a criminal slave concerned in the plot: but he alleged that he was free born in Ireland and stolen thence and sold here as a slave. We think he proved his allegation, and we submit it to the legislature whether this mitigates his crime." [3] Certainly the article could be improved, but given the nature of Wikipedia I was hoping that someone could do just that, or indeed add more information about Jack, should it exist. As for "Non-notable", he does appear to be the first Afro-Irish person known by name, and that was the basis of my creating the article. Fergananim (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a source that says that? That probably would make him notable, but we'd need to see published RS that actually say that. Otherwise it's original research.

I did see the source you linked, it appears to be a single passing mention and thus does not impart notability - per WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, that requires significant and in-depth coverage in non-primary RS. This is a WP:PRIMARY source, after all, and those 2 sentences seem to be pretty much the full extent of what we know about him. The book linked by smmurphy above just refers to the same document, and includes Jack in a couple other lists of names (again, passing mentions only). So sure, he was tried as a member of the plot and there is a mention of him in that context, but he does not appear to have any particular notability beyond that. This is nowhere near enough coverage in RS to make him notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come across this article? Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per arguments above. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lakhan 2[edit]

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

Prod deleted, despite no content Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a redirect before the IP's recent changes. An option would be to return to the redirect with semi-protection as I doubt the IP would stop. Ravensfire (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and creation protect the title, a sequel to or remake of Ram Lakhan (2016 film) is, it appears, for now only speculation. A return to the redirect to Rohit Shetty is not plausible, this search: "Rohit Shetty" "Ram Lakhan" suggest that Shetty's not going to do the remake. — Sam Sailor 04:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on information from sources found in the search suggested by Sailor Sam. Ravensfire (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:31, 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) 21:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glooby[edit]

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

New e-commerce site, in an article supported by 3 passing mentions and a short article in a small Swedish local newspaper. So no, not notable. Calton | Talk 15:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The cited sources show bare minimum WP:GNG notability, but there is a significance issue. Draftify to allow article creator opportunity to find better sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple advertising complete with the announcement-esque sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources available about the subject. Bessloop (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The news bubble present for the startup of a company is a WP:NOTNEWS problem, and the article does not make for a good encyclopedic topic. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 24 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 Interstellar (film)#Production design. Sandstein 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger (Interstellar)[edit]

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

Fancruft, based on the non-notable novelization of the movie Interstellar. I would suggest merging it to the Interstellar article, but there is very little of any value since none of the information other that the title sentence was actually reflected in the film. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline: Ranger is not notable for a stand-alone article, but since it is a fictional element in Interstellar, a categorised ((R from fictional element)) to Interstellar (film)#Production design is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. — Sam Sailor 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in video games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list brings an overview of random video games that have been released in a particular year. The early video games should be merged to List of early video games while the rest of the years already have their own articles. Furthermore, the games listed on this list do not really show it's significance on the year. Although the article was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 (resulting a keep), there is not any real development of the article outside of listing random video games released in a particular year. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing but a completely arbitrary list of random video games. There doesn't seem to be any criteria for inclusion here, and the subject is of a scope that does not lend itself to one, massive list. The vast majority of the years included here already have much more succinct, better organized, articles on each individual year, and there is already an existing category that allows for easy navigation to these articles. The information on the handful of early years that don't have individual articles can be merged, as the nominator stated, to Early history of video games, assuming the information isn't already present there. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the two previous statements, and as they say, the early information can be merged into Early history of video games. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the games aren't random, but rather a selection of the most well-known games from that year. It's a useful list to me, it gives a good overview of history for games fans who will be familiar with a large proportion of the titles. ··gracefool 💬 05:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies a game to be "most well-known"? For example, in some years, a Lego Game appears (ex. Lego Star Wars in 2005) while other years lack the another game in the Lego series (ex. Lego Star Wars II in 2006). In another example, the list contains Sonic Riders in 2006 but not Sonic 06, an arguably better well-known game released that year. The list does not contain Sonic Generations, too. Even if this list does contain a series of the "most well-known" games, there are better lists for these types of games such as List of video games considered the best and individual articles listing video games by either decade (ex. 1990s in video gaming) or year (ex. 1996 in video gaming). Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unwieldy and vague. The history of video games is properly described in the various articles (for instance, History of video games, 1990s in video gaming, History of Nintendo) and this is an arbitrary list. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is simply redundant to more specific articles. It is also too vague and has no guidelines for inclusion. Nothing from this list should be merged into Early history of video games as most of the information is already included in the Early history of video games article and everything else is unsourced. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The games listed under each year have been arbitrarily chosen.--The1337gamer (talk) 23:13, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5 Ways of Conceptualizing Data[edit]

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

As already tagged, this is somebody's term paper, not a Wikipedia article. Hard to say whether it is original research or just regurgitation of the one source that it is largely based on. Either way it isn't a notable concept supported by reliable third-party sources. Lithopsian (talk) Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL14, a whole lot of synth, a MOS defying title, and no reliable sources to support that "Five ways of conceptualizing data" should be a notable subject in itself. — Sam Sailor 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this is original research Anirvan (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the three people above have summed it up nicely Adamtt9 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another case of a poor student who takes a class focused on creating new articles, leading to veteran editors spending time deleting them because they do not follow guidelines. W Nowicki (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I came to this article because of a link to a dab page, but I agree with the above arguments for deletion. If the article were to be kept, it would require a substantial amount of cleanup. Not that needing cleanup is a reason for deletion, but .... jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a serious lack of sources and agree with the arguments above. Joseffritzl (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow - WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:DEL14, and per the title, probably also WP:DEL6. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 24 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) Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future (Future album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, either as is now or a redirect. The album is by a successful rapper and is almost certain to chart next week. Yes, we don't necessarily keep albums based on the notability of the artist or what the release may do, but being a successful rapper who releases an album through regular channels almost guarantees you some sort of chart placing these days, so I think this is a premature nomination. Besides, there is no real point in deletion when, with topics such as this, the page would just be recreated by an editor if it was deleted. As for redirects, they are cheap and keeping one pointing back to the rapper's page would aid readers. What the album needs now is third-party coverage, i.e. reviews. Ss112 22:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected the article 3 days ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why wanna delete the article, the album was released today. Just add more sources to it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsewang Gyaltson[edit]

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

Non-notable player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY. AaronWikia (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — As the captain of the Indian national ice hockey team, Gyaltson has been widely written about both in Indian and world media. 30 seconds on Google turns up the following articles. Anirvan (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Anirvan - clearly meets WP:GNG and also WP:HOCKEY (which to be honest, reads as a bit America-centric) as someone who has played at the highest extant level for his country, let alone as captain. Melcous (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 24 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) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kherbet Qanafar (K-City)[edit]

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

Delete. This entire article appears to be a HOAX. The first clue is that it purports to be a city in Lebanon whose official language is English. References appear to be wholly irrelevant. For example, ref [2] purports to document the population of the city, but is a link to an Internet live stats site. Ref [4] purports to document the area of the city, but is a link to the City of Beirut's site. Refs [10] and [18] are the same dead link; ref [19] is the website of a Dubai hospital; ref [20] is the website of a Korean hospital. I can't find any reference on the page that actually mentions or describes this alleged city of almost 50,000 people. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [Edit] I note that the title of the article, without the parenthetical, appears to be the actual name of a village in the Beka'a Valley in Lebanon, but as far as I can tell the content of the article bears little or no relationship to that real-world village. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the original author has moved the page to the title Kherbet Qanafar subsequent to this nomination (and attempted, twice, to remove the AfD template... sigh). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If only the emergency phone numbers lined up. CMD (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the page is supported with trustworthy pictures and references, as a linkage, the website used in Ref [1] is Arabic web page of the city which is only available in one language which shows in an unorganized way that all the information found in the article is real, where the pictures are completely verified. Ref [9] shows the web page of the claimed institution (JLSI) which is correct and valid. The title is correct excluding the parenthesized description which was later removed by the original author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.88.108 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, the name of the article is indeed the name of a real village, and that village apparently does have a real website. The website does not show the large urban center described in the article; it shows a town that is proud to announce it has acquired a new Bobcat to remove snow from its streets! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the pictures, the deleting admin should delete these as well, given they were all uploaded for this article and who knows what they're copyright status is. CMD (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took liberty to delete photos. There is no freedom of panorama in Lebanon and architect's permission is needed. But if the photos are not made in Lebanon, then they are clearly hoaxes. Taivo (talk) 20:07, 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) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Perez (football)[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recreated 06:10, 19 February 2017‎ as Luis Perez (American football), and Luis Perez (football) turned into a redirect. I have added the ((la)) above, and added a ((subst:afd1|Luis Perez (football))) to Luis Perez (American football). — Sam Sailor 10:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Sam Sailor - not sure what happened, but the American football article is up, but the redirect didn't work. The "redirect" appeared at the top of the article, but didn't work as a redirect. You might want to look at it again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, the user added a redirect to the top of the article and retained the text, so it looked like this, thanks onel5969. In any case I think we are going to handle the situation, to put it simple we just have a duplicating article at Luis Perez (American football) which maybe is the better DAB anyway. Cheers, — Sam Sailor 13:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Take administrative action first (I see two articles on the same subject) and let me know when and if we should re-evaluate the article for inclusion or deletion. I suggest we leave the administrative action to be decided by those already looking at it and then have them let us know when to come back.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Northamerica1000 - Sorry to bug you, but could you take a look at this? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may not become involved in researching this matter; working on other things at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:DEL8, doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. — Sam Sailor 10:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Luis Perez is notable because he is the first Mexican-American quarterback in NCAA history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosp14619 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, no. Mark Sanchez, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH yet; it looks like he's bee nominated for a national award and is considered a likely professional prospect, so if one of those things happens, then the article could e recreated. Per above: if indeed he is notable for being "the first Mexican-American quarterback in NCAA history," then there should be significant coverage of that fact; if not, then it doesn't meet WP's guidelines. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does Dakota Prukop have a wikipedia page if he has no national awards and isn't as significant as Luis Perez? Carlosp14619 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeca Schall[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a non-winning candidate for local political office. His strongest claim to greater notability than the norm for unsuccessful political candidates seems to be that he got used as a target of alt-right racist attacks against the party that he's a member of, in a subsequent election in which he wasn't even a candidate. This, however, just makes him a WP:BLP1E -- he isn't even the subject of the incident coverage, but just gets namechecked in coverage which is primarily about the attackers. As unfortunate as the incident was, it is not grounds in and of itself for a standalone BLP of him -- it can and should be discussed as a noteworthy incident in the article on the party that did the attacking, but it's not enough to justify a separate article about a person who has no other substantive claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM also applies, his only claim to notability being this racial incident. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Bearcat comment.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicke Kabamba[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having taken part in a fully-professional league match. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 24 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) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Kiani[edit]

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

Subject received some press coverage however failed to meet Wikipedia's criteria for musicians! Saqib (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of locations in Charmed. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (Charmed)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fictional concept with no independent notability. The only sources being used in the article are the episodes of the series itself, which do not establish notability, and I can find no reliable sources at all talking about the concept. As there is no information here aside from some crufty plot summaries, and there is nothing here that is being supported with reliable sources, there's nothing here worth merging to any of the other pages about Charmed. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations in Charmed. I loved this show back in the day but yea, this is only a thing within the fictional 'verse. ValarianB (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was a fan of this show too, but I completely agree it is only notable within the fictional universe. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ValarianB. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 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) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hall Ingram[edit]

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

A classic WP:BLP1E - she was a notable person's supervisor, and there doesn't appear to be anything else we can say about her, because there are few to no substantive reliable sources focusing on her. PROD was declined. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nomination. A bureaucrat tangentially involved in a one-time political issue.Glendoremus (talk) 05:07, 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) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Rowoon[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON (to add: Individual members of SF9, with the exception of Kang_Chan-hee, are NOT notable enough to have their own articles as their activities are exclusively within the group SF9 and nowhere else.) Tibbydibby (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Comment @ Tibbydibby: WP:TOOSOON is not a policy-based reason for deletion, could the deletion rationale be expanded, please? Prima facie the article doesn't look like much, but a search for the Hangul 김석우 reveals a lot of hits. I do not speak Korean, what do all these search results reveal? — Sam Sailor 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough acting roles to meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not independently notable outside of his group. — ξ ^xplicit 01:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siv Jakobsen[edit]

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

non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe even speedy delete. There really isn't even a claim of signifigance. —Non-Dropframe _talk 23:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 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. Sandstein 14:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aami[edit]

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

Does not meet film notability guidelines. Unreleased films for which photography has not begun are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL8: no reliable sources confirm that principal photography have commenced, thus subject currently fails the notability guideline for future films. Can be rewritten if and when sources support the notability guideline for films is met. — Sam Sailor 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 17:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ward (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Too far down the English Football league structure to be notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy, fails [[WP:NFOOTBALL]] as he currently plays National League. — Sam Sailor 19:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a senior professional league. His appearances for Brighton's under-23 side are also not classed as playing for a fully professional side per WP:FOOTBALL consensus. Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kosack (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our insanely lax inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having taken part in a fully-professional league match. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:14, 24 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. Sandstein 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglic (fictional language)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:N. Not much found following a Google search, this article was the first thing that popped up. Maybe a merge into the topics mentioned within, but doubtful that it's enough for a stand-alone article South Nashua (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, Anglic is used as a term for a fictional language in more that one publication (i.e. Bring' Uplift universe, and the Traveller universe) so it's not just an entry about one product.

The mention in Uplift about Anglic is a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmasaJoslin (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a marginal part of those two things. South Nashua (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references and unlikely to find any reliable third-party discussion. This is clearly original research.Glendoremus (talk) 05:13, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Regis, Astana[edit]

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

Brand new advertising article, from SPA account. The article may not be finished, but still manages to tell you where it is located, what it's website is, and what it will look like when finished. No encyclopedic knowledge whatsover, simply advertising muck. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a repository of promotional materials ("splendid views" etc). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to show notability. Reads like a promotion and uses the hotel website for references.Glendoremus (talk) 05:15, 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) 21:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daði Freyr Arnarsson (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the basis that the Icelandic top flight is fully pro, an assertion contradicted by sources cited at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG] and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approve - Passes WP:GNG with plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources and all sources are secondary. User: Ivar1988 18 February 2017
Approve - I argues the WP:NFOOTBALL due to the small size of Iceland the Icelandic league will never become fully pro. Daði plays full time with a fully pro football team (FH Hafnarfjordur). We should not disclude full time footballers from smaller countries just based on rules that benefit mostly larger countries. We can't discriminat footballers only based on the WP:NFOOTBALL rule but have to consider special circumstances separately. User: Ivar1988 18 February 2017
Delete - clearly fails NFOOTY and I see no evidence of GNG at all; just routine match reports and passing mentions Spiderone 11:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having taken part in a fully-professional adult league match as far as I can see. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was inching twords a delete, but on second thought this article looks like WP:TOOSOON if nothing else. However the article looks very well written and sourced. Might it be possible for the article to be moved to the user's draft space so avoid conflict and confusion in the future? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approve - Passes the WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage as the main topic of in four reliable sources. See references number: 8, 9, 15 and 20. The two biggest online football news website when made reliable article about him. User: Ivar1988, 22 February 2017.
Comment - Regarding the fail WP:NFOOTBALL, Cwmhiraeth he has played 10 games in a semi-pro adult league with team BÍ/Bolungarvík (see reference number 6). He has been the second goalkeeper in numerous games in a fully-pro team in the Icelandic top league. I agree with Inter&anthro that WP:TOOSOON might apply here. Since this article is not poorly written and i don't think we should delete it since the player is one of the most promising young goalkeepers of Iceland (plays with the most successful team FH and has played 13 youth games for the national team so far) and will soon fully fill the criteria's you are concerned about. User: Ivar1988, 22 February 2017.
Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Can't see how WP:TOOSOON applies given that he is contracted to a club in a semi-pro league. Number 5 7 19:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the main issue here that the title of this article says "footballer"? Would removing that solve the issue? Can this article the modified to represent this upcoming players career and not deleted? User: Ivar1988, 23 February 2017. —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approve - Player appears significant in Icelandic sport.Spray787 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey County Skeptics[edit]

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

Apparently promotional article for a Local organization. (or perhaps one of its members) Perhaps a brief article on Skepticamp might be justified. The promotional nature of this article is shown by the excessive number of photos of individuals DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, I'm sorry to read you find the article 'promotional'. Any Wiki page is meant for informational, educational purposes only. If the number of photos is excessive, we can remove some of those; I'll look into that now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Better now? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (de-photo-ing certainly was a good idea) Cited coverage heavily skewed to local but still sufficient, I think. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the information is too listing-esque and the sources only announcements and mentions, it's not overall substantial. SwisterTwister talk 09:13, 7 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 11:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added reference to this page for an article published in what I understand is a national publication and a WP:RS.It discusses this organization and the importance of public outreach meetings such as the one held by MCS. Hope this helps. RobP (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rap Monster. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM (mixtape)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for recordings specifically those for mixtapes. No sources with in depth coverage are offered. My search could only find places to stream the recording. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rap Monster where this mixtape is already mentioned. Insufficient coverage for a separate article. I did find a short billboard article. Gab4gab (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baler#Industrial_balers. I'm going to take the liberty of simply redirecting. I don't believe an Afd is necessary. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboard balers[edit]

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

While the subject more than likely meets general notability requirements, the article does not explain what a cardboard baler is. Meatsgains (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 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 Afro-Eurasia. Kurykh (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme points of Afro-Eurasia[edit]

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

Afro-Eurasia is not a widely used division of the world. The extreme points of which are trivial and not well-enough discussed to meet notability guidelines. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Redundant to Extreme points of Eurasia and Extreme points of Africa. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Afro-Eurasia (which should itself be merged with Old World, but that's a different question). NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Afro-Eurasia as per the merge template I added atop the article just prior to this nomination. Afro-Eurasia may not be a widely-used term, but it is an encyclopedic term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Afro-Eurasia. Should only take a moment. Afro-Eurasia / Old World / World Island is a reasonably notable concept, the article is short, and this material should fit right in. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus about deletion, but consensus that if kept it should be moved to Arab rejectionism, which is what it is (now) about. Can be renominated after the move. Sandstein 14:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rejectionism[edit]

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

A dicdef / original research for an '-ism' based on occasonal usage of this noun derived from "rejection" and says nothing beyond the literal meaning of the word "reject" something. Basically a WP:SYNTH of examples of random usages of the term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted after recent expansion of one special subject.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative solution: Move to Arab rejectionism and turn this title into dab page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: @Mark viking: @Resnjari: Will you agree with speedy non-admin closure and implementing the alternative solution above? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the work E.M.Gregory and you have done to improve the article per WP:HEY, I think keeping and renaming to Arab rejectionism, with Rejectionism becoming a DAB page, is a good solution and I support it. --Mark viking (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around and there is the article International recognition of Israel. As this article is about recognition/non-recongition of Israel an at most the content here amounts to about two paragraphs. It can be transferred there with a redirect of Rejectionism for that article. That is a better solution than here. This term rejectionism is a neologism anyway mainly used by some proponents of the Israeli side of the conflict interpreting the Arab/Palestinian position. In many other conflicts around the world there are sides who "reject" certain things however the term rejectionism is not used. Having this article on its own goes more on the POV side as its infers that rejecting something is an Arab thing. Having a article called Arab rejctionism also would be problematic too and have a POV-ish slant to it. Unless the term rejectionism has wide ranging currency and use for other conflicts then i would change my stance and say to keep this article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now strongly sourced to peer-reviewed academic journalists, and to bluelinked scholars and diplomats who have written about Arab rejectionism in a serious way, defining it and discussing its political impact. While there undoubtedly are a number of articles form which this term can be usefully linked, I do not see a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per reasons outlined by editor Staszek Lem. Resnjari (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if it's basically WP:COATRACK to largely address Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel. It sure seems that way. I've tagged this for both the Israel and Palestine discussion pages, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows that rejectionism as a political concept has existed for decades. There are books devoted to it, such as The Deadly Embrace: The Impact of Israeli and Palestinian Rejectionism on the Peace Process, 1997 and The Search for Peace: Peace Proposals and Rejectionism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict : a Handbook of Selected Documents, 1983 and articles such as Dateline Israel: A New Rejectionism, Foreign Policy, 1979. GScholar shows more than 2,100 hits, so there is more sourcing available. There are political groups such as the Palestine coalition Rejectionist Front. Hence the topic of Israeli/Palestinian rejectionism seems notable. Given a notable use of this concept, the synth stuff can be cut and the article is salvageable and should be kept. I would have no problem with renaming the article to something like Palestinian and Israeli rejectionism to reflect that this is about the more specific concept. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please find sources which talk about "rejectionism as a political concept". There is Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli rejectionism, and many other kind of rejectionism. The fact there are two-word terms does not imply there is a concept for a single-word term beyond its dictionary definition. There should be two separate articles (may be more) and this one a disambig page.. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S., after reading a bit around, I see that "Palestinian rejectionsm" is is fact "Arab rejection of the Israel state", and I am pretty sure there is a good redirect target without actually writing a WP:FORK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- P.P.S. I also looked thru philocophical books which use the term "rejectionism". In most case these are ad hoc usages. E.g. here 'r-ism' is a shorthand for "Foucault's rejection of humanism" whateber it is. and here the author gives his own definition of r-ism as "the approach that takes the ostensible results to be interpreted to be so unacceptable as to constitute a signal to reject something that led to these results." Also, Holocaust denial is also called "r-ism" by some. Etc. etc. Basically, any kind of rejection (disambiguation) of anything may be dubbed "rejectionism". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that there don't seem to be sources on the general concept of rejectionism and the article as it stands has problems with synthesis. A DAB page for a general concept seems like a reasonable solution to me, if there are good targets. In the spirit of salvaging what we can, there is a particular use of the concept associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict that seems notable and so could have an article devoted to it, or separate Palestinian and Israeli articles. The current article mentions the Palestinian-Israeli use, but doesn't have a lot on it. If there is a good redirect target, I would be happy to consider it. Rejectionist Front is not a good redirect target because it is too specific. --Mark viking (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It being described as a "political concept" is found in some sources relating to the Israeli side regarding their interpretation of the Palestinian view. More on the wp:POV and wp:fork side, with a dose of wp:OR in the way it is written here. The suggestion by editor Staszek Lem on a redirect within the article about recognition/non-recongition of Palestine is apt here. Still stand by the view this article ought to be deleted. Resnjari (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect term to Arab rejectionism, a term that has been in wide use for decades, with some minor uses of "Palestinian rejectionism" and the inevitible tit-for-tat introduction of "Israeli rejection." I have already sourced this WP:NEO, although it's not exactly NEO, even this article has been around for years and years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN; I did a minor expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have started the new article, Arab rejectionism, rather than expanding this one, doomed to be a disambig page. (also it oud be good to summarize it in Foreign_relations_of_Israel#No_recognition_or_diplomatic_relations. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, quite ordinary to find a poorly-sourced article brought to AFD by an editor who found only "random usages of the term". Then to have another editor realize that there is a coherent topic, bring specific and reliable sourcing for the term, and propose a rename as the outcome. It's not only quite usual, it's pretty much win-win.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It became coherent only after I deleted various other fluff and you added more content to a single subject of many conflated here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilie Broch Knudsen[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an artist and academic. This just states that she exists, and references the fact solely to a (deadlinked) primary source on the website of the institution where she works. As always, "she exists, and here's a staff profile on the website of her own employer to prove it" is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article -- she needs to be reliably sourceable as passing one or more specific notability criteria in WP:NARTIST and/or WP:NACADEMICS, but nothing like that is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics or artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as per WP:GNG. In the current revision, refs # 2, 5 and 6 are in-depth and non-trivial, and I could dig up more. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this meets WP:NACADEMIC #6, as the former rector of Oslo National Academy of the Arts and Geschichte has expanded the article a great deal with references. Mortee (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Hmlarson (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi to Amritsar Trains[edit]

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

per WP:NOTTRAVEL. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. We could also merge any relevant content over to New Delhi Amritsar Express. Meatsgains (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A portion of the article also seems somewhat promotional. —Non-Dropframe _talk 23:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 24 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. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Voris[edit]

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

This is a rather peculiar instance of a WP:Walled garden monster. The subject of the article is the founder of a non-notable media company (referred to in the article as an apostolate, but it does not have the backing of any formal church or denomination), and has received some WP:ONEEVENT style media attention for conflicts owing to certain radical statements he has made. The problem is that we need to identify Voris as notable per WP:BIO, and I just don't see it. No biographies have been written about Voris and all the sources that are reliable in our article are simply quoting him rather than discussing him as a notable person. I note that his media network, "churchmilitant.com" does not seem to be all that notable either, in spite of it serving as a kind of ultra-right-wing bastion for Catholics who are on the verge of falling off into the traditionalist/sedevacantist club. However, detailed coverage of this niche community does not seem to be forthcoming and in spite of internet-based controversy of the message-board sort, I do not see much in the way of reliably sourced information that would let us write anything like a halfway decent article. The current article is really awful, to be clear. It traffics in rumor, soapboxing, and coatracking to such an extent that I just decided that WP:TNT is appropriate (though re-creation is not advisable either). jps (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a NYTimes article which is a profile of Voris and churchmilitant.com https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/us/church-militant-theology-is-put-to-new-and-politicized-use.html It seems to me to establish notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the above as well as stuff like this [4] means that (yes) he does appear to be very notable as a force behind the current ideology of the whitehouse.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's an article from the Detroit Free Press that was republished on the front page of today's USA Today. If Voris doesn't have a page, then his group should. There's clearly been coverage about both topics, but it's just a matter of cleaning up his bio. APK whisper in my ear 08:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article relies way too much on sources created by Voris. However there has clearly been enough coverage of him in sources indepdent of him, both identified in the article and in general, that an article is justified. The claim above that his theology has any connection to Donald J. Trump is just plain ludicous though. Also, the notion that Voris's views are wide spread probably can be over stated, but his statements and actions do recieve coverage is reliable sources at a level that justified having an article. The article does need to be reworked, but having it is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't seem so much as a notability rather than a likeability issue. Even an "ultra-right-wing bastion for Catholics" should be there if it's notable enough. JASpencer (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient press coverage establishes notability. And "Walled garden" addresses problems in lack of linking to other articles. It is not grounds for deletion, but for wikification. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 25 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kronenberg[edit]

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

Does not pass either of WP:GNG or WP:PROF. The subject appears to have only earned a bachelor's degree in 2016, based on this list of honors undergraduate thesis presentations at the Boston College [5]. Does not appear to have either a PhD or even a Master's degree. Does not seem to have any publications either, based on the GS search [6]. (Note that the first hit there refers not to his papers but that of Nils Michael Kronenberg from Germany.) The article says that he is a "junior professor" at UCLA, but he is not listed as a faculty member there [7]. Instead he is listed there as a current graduate student, [8]. A prod was declined. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. I changed "junior professor" to "student" based on the directory listing given above by Nsk92. Discounting a paper in materials science by a different N. M. Kronenberg, there is nothing in the citation record to indicate notability as a researcher. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete researchers with only a bachelors and no sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG should not be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite possibly meets WP:CSD#A7 considering he's only a student and the only claim to significance is that he produced a "well-received" undergraduate dissertation. – Joe (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this misguided BLP. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Goodridge[edit]

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

Not notable outside of the band. Lacks sufficient references for a stand alone article. Karst (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in reliable sources and there is no in depth coverage in him on an individual level. Meatsgains (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability indepedent of the band he is a part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baek Zuho[edit]

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

Prodded with, "Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:MUSICBIO." Was deprodded without rationale. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor and musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not independently notable outside of his group. — ξ ^xplicit 01:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 24 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 User:GiantSnowman/Jonathan Lewis. obvious solution DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lewis (soccer player)[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator in the basis that this player has been selected for the US men's national team - except of course 1) he hasn't and 2) that's not enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, you need to actually play. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is inferior to one in my sandbox - I suggest the two are merged in my userspace, and them moved to the correct article title of Jonathan Lewis (soccer) when he does play professionally/internationally. Giant Snowman 13:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the player currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not played in a fully professional league or for a senior national side and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. GiantSnowman has an article prepared in his sandbox so, as the user suggested, merge into there until he meets notability requirements then move back into mainspace. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to GiantSnowman's sandbox as stated above. Would avoid the loss of data while at the same time upholding the notability requirements and appeasing all parties. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to GiantSnowman's sandbox per above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:43, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Adams (footballer)[edit]

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

PROD contested, no reason given. Player has not played in a fully-professional league so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 12:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails relevant criteria Spiderone 12:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article creator has been blocked as a sock and the article is now eligible for WP:CSD#G5... Giant Snowman 21:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - case of WP:TOOSOON, article can always be recreated if and when the subject meets WP:NFOOTY of WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 24 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) 21:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando bravo[edit]

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

BLP Article that has been declined twice at AFC Depot. Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Ref's are all about what man does, as opposed to man himself. scope_creep (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC) scope_creep (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gilani[edit]

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

Was deprodded after the addition of several non-rs sources. Does not appear to pass either WP:FILMMAKER, and searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Also, as the nominator pointed out, the page's current references are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's hardly 1 single CCS here, and when you take the time to translate the Arabic language sources, they are all SPSs and NRSs. Fails [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]], delete per policy. — Sam Sailor 19:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (Amended. — Sam Sailor 07:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The sources are in Farsi, not Arabic. --bonadea contributions talk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film theorist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 24 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) 21:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramriddlz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. One lengthy biography/interview here in The Fader. No charted songs. No awards or nominations. Trivial mentions of his name across the web. Seems to be notable only for a brief interaction with Drake. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we're back: comparing the versions and looking at the coverage it is clear that nothing has changed since the last AfD (which closed as delete, of course). OK, so now he sells his own clothes through his website--Sweetergear, get it, because his one claim to fame is his Drake-remixed track "Sweeterman" which was, apparently, played on the radio. Except that he doesn't have a website and the link is just a redirect to the website of an apparel company called "Anana". That is, it's spam. No, for all the reasons given here and at the last AfD, delete. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Magnolia677, and I'll ping Sro23 for shits and giggles, this article has a long history of sock involvement. User:I'm from Covina, who created the deleted version, is a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopVisionary), and User:Delotrooladoo, who has a significant number of edits in the current version, is a sock as well (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo). What they have in common, besides this obscure article, is...wait for it...Bbb23, who ran CU in both cases. Coincidence? ... Drmies (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: The two cases are Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this would be so much fun if you got a bit more conspiratorial. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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 Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mito[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Mito's sole claim to notability is as the designer of a notable building, the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt but there is no citation to verify this fact, either in Mito's article or in the article about the court building. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for an architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Unscintillating: I would agree except there is no source to verify the claim that Mito actually designed this building. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - All five of the top hits on Google books look likely, but here are two that were clear in the snippet:

Archis. Stichting Wonen. 2002. Retrieved 2017-02-25. ...the Supreme Court of Egypt, designed by Ahmed Mito, employs features of Pharaonic architecture but with different proportions.

Paul Ayoub-Geday; Mandy McClure (2002). Egypt Almanac. Egypto-file. ISBN 978-977-5893-02-4. Retrieved 2017-02-25. Completed in 2001, the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, designed by Ahmed Mito, places emphasis on employing features of ancient Egyptian architecture while producing a quasi-new form.

Unscintillating (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. In that case, I'd support a redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:57, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Prakash N B[edit]

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

The article was created and edited by the subject. The prod was removed. No reliable sources available can be found by google search. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggests passes WP:GNG/WP:BIO — KylieTastic (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GNG failure; promotional; no evidence of notability (a CV doesn't count) Spiderone 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:NSKATE as pointed out by the participants. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Tamura[edit]

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

Not seeing evidence she meets WP:GNG. Web searches show no significant coverage, just competition results and event coverage by hometown paper. Doesn't meet WP:ATH as subject has not competed at the highest level of the sport. - Quoting this from an earlier PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Tamura&action=history ), she meets the criteria of WP:NSKATE: Competed in the free skate at an ISU Championship. Hergilei (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and WP:NSKATE. She did indeed skate in a free skate (finishing 13th) at a world junior. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 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 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If something doesn't have many search results, this doesn't nesscisarily make them non-notable. She is notable, and shouldn't be deleted. Ethanlu121 (talk) 12:54, 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) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Yowman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to establish notability. This source identifies him as having received a plaque for having had "a helping hand in producing a worldwide platinum smash album". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician and music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable non-preforming musician who has achieved multiple RIAA certifications from working with artists from Beyonce to Chris Brown.User:NotLazyAnymore (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bloated promotion piece without any sources that go to notability. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 26 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongxing Railway Station (Dujiangyan)[edit]

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

Per wp:CRUFT this is not notable. Snood1205 (talk) 01:33, 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 10:18, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nastya Kusakina[edit]

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

An unremarkable model. Fails to meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. XXN, 21:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some are more substantial than others, none especially so, but articles about her have appeared in Russian Vogue, Russian Glamour, and Russian Allure. Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 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 10:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 20-year-old model who is not as of yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~This article needs expansion. I have placed a Blp sources tag on the page.Politekid (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)~~ Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Boyarskov[edit]

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

Non-notable person. XXN, 23:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are statements here that could point in the direction of notability if there were much more substance and much better sourcing to support them, but as written this basically just states that he exists, and minimally sources the fact just enough to escape blp-prod but not even remotely enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 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 10:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable bureaucrat. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 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) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adoette[edit]

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

The sources are a mix of non-reliable paid obituaries, self-created sources, and extremely local sources nothing substantial showing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely unconvincing, information is trivial and the sources are mere announcements. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 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 10:16, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktimaan Animated[edit]

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

Major purge of inadequate sources needed or deletion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 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 10:06, 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) 21:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tra cielo e terra[edit]

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

Though Roberto Cacciapaglia is a notable singer, the article in this current version does not meet GNG for music. References do not show the album is notable. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article has also created 8 other pages for albums by the same composer. I hesitated about bundling all the pages together as a bundled AfD. I tagged them as being unsourced and potentially non-notabl and for the moment all the editor has done is add links to the composer's official page. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 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 10:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 10:19, 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) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Coyle[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Low-level hockey player that meets no criteria in WP:NHOCKEY to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player. It is high time sportspeople have to at least meet profesion specific criteria like others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 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 10:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Serbian Campaign of World War I. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian help for Serbia during world war I[edit]

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

WP:OR Meatsgains (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author is a heavy contributor to the Russian (ru:Российская помощь Сербии в ходе Первой мировой войны) and Serbian (sr:Руска помоћ Србији у Првом светском рату) language versions of this page, both of which seem well cited, etc. There is also an existing sub-page related to this topic, Russia–Serbia relations#World War I. I think the topic is notable, but this article needs a some development. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The current content is a translation of the lede of ru:Российская помощь Сербии в ходе Первой мировой войны, which I guess is what the creator was trying to indicate with the link at the bottom. Perhaps they were intending to translate the rest (before a deletion tag with a five-character rationale was slapped on it an hour after it was started...) – Joe (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I see what you are saying. I'm guessing you wouldn't be opposed to me withdrawing the AfD nomination? Meatsgains (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, no. I do think it was a bit hasty; deletion is not cleanup and all that. I can't say for sure that the topic is actually notable, though. This really isn't my area. – Joe (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I brought it to AfD. I was initially going to PROD but thought I'd be best to bring it here to get feedback from others. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wish there was a process of speedy userfy to move new pages by new users like this one (although this user isn't completely new) to user or draft space so they could be developed (and if abandoned, sent to MFD). Like, you could tag it with a somewhat friendlier version of prod suggesting userfication/draftification if the tag isn't removed within some amount of time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all because I didn't know that the theme "Serbia Russia in world war I" exists. I made Russian text ruther better. You were right when said that I am not very experienced. I wanted to continue the theme of a Serbian writer later because I haven't time. My aim is to take Pu off power in Russia. Hi! SergiyKursk^(Talk) 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect somewhere, unless we get a substantive article by the closure date (or userify). At present this is a useless stub, but it has good possibilities (unless we have an article on it already. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to International aid to Serbia during World War I. That topic is notable, and Russian aid was a notable portion of it. I would say it is not a completely useless stub because of the interwikis. There are sources in English for this topic. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 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 10:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serbian Campaign of World War I. I see nothing in this new article that cannot be covered there in a paragraph. ValarianB (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serbian Campaign of World War I is a good idea; anything useful can be added there first. If the volume of content warrants it, then a new article on International aid to Serbia during World War I can be created. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per ValarianB comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serbian Campaign of World War I seems like a good destination to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:02, 24 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) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matstubs[edit]

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

Per WP:Musicbio. Is one big song on Spotify, one big video on YouTube, and one fairly recent record contract notable enough for a music bio? Perhaps if additional reliable sources can be added, otherwise I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:42, 3 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 06:10, 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 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Air[edit]

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

Four year old stub with no sources, possible hoax Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick google search turns up multiple resources that at least verify the existence of the company behind it and that they made a lot of ado about that car, so it's not a hoax article. (The car itself, on the other hand...) Sources I found includes some trivial mentions and I haven't the foggiest regarding what are or aren't reliable sources on the subject, just leaving them here for folks who do know about the subject and Wikipedia's guidelines on automobiles to check:

http://www.virtualsteamcarmuseum.org/makers/liquid_air_power_and_automobile_co.html, including a picture of a letter by the company behind the automobile.

Also states there's a mention in Georgano, G. N., Encyclopedia of American Automobiles, (New York, E. P. Dutton & Co., 1968), p. 119. If anyone has that encyclopedia, they might be able to verify.

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/liquidair/liquidair.htm#knu
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10087205/Liquid-Air-the-future-of-motoring.html has a short mention.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=9nT3CgAAQBAJ&dq has some info as well. No clue as to the reliability of the source, however.
http://www.earlyamericanautomobiles.com/massautos.htm
US 652384 A & US 633426 A are patents granted to Knudsen/Liquid Air Power And Automobile Company, proving again that the company did exist.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E04E1DB153CE433A2575AC1A96F9C94689ED7CF&legacy=true - a 1899 (not a typo) New York Times article, though I can see only the abstract
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=945&dat=19020506&id=cWMLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7VIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2460,2751086&hl=en - 1902 newspaper scan.

There's a fair bit more that can be found with some digging. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also have an encyclopedia of automobiles which ought to have an entry; I'll check when I get home. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:53, 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 06:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax, just needs effort. Better a valid stub than an article with misplaced or missued sources. Simply put an expert needed tag, paste the above source list into a Talk section for the article, and give it time. Key thing, the knee-jerk response of my fellow Tolstoyan—we can be harsh, can't we—was clarified by the work of AddWittyNameHere, and there is clear basis for the article as a real, useful, if niche entry in the history of the business and technology. Cheers, Leprof_7272. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ I am citing WP:DEL7 here. Yes, lots of Google books snippets, but what do they say? I couldn't find anything to support the claim that this was a "joint American/English concern". Yes, there are addresses in both London and Boston, but that is not the same thing. With such a shaky foundation, I think the only path forward is a 100% rewrite, so that we know that every concept is verifiable and not WP:SYNTH. The technology was to take a steam-powered automobile and replace the steam with liquid compressed air. A 1953 book questions that this was ever anything more than an idea that sold stock. Certainly notable given the coverage then and over time, but I didn't see any mention of there being a sample in a museum. Unscintillating (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the sources found by AddWittyNameHere, I decided to make a bold edit to the existing page to remove the idea that there was ever production or a production factory, as well as eliminate the vague words "joint American/English concern". Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear business listing of which our policies are clear is never the case for articles, the sources are simple announcements, not substance, so there's no convincing basis. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note This XfD has been closed and reopened, see edit history for details. Temporary full page protection has been requested. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources provided do not establish notability. I also note that Liquid Air Power and Automobile Co. article does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 27 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 Merano Cup. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Merano Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Also nominating he following for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 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 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merano Cup. The individual tournaments are not notable, but if we're going to have the parent article Merano Cup, these should be redirect there as a plausible search term and per WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 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 all to Piruetten. Kurykh (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Piruetten[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event. Also only reference is not working (therefore the article is unreferenced). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Comment Reference now working. Gab4gab (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These events were notable enough, attracting many top skaters like Nancy Kerrigan, Philippe Candeloro, Elvis Stojko, Chen Lu, Yuka Sato, Maria Butyrskaya, etc. Hergilei (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 7 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 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It attracted numerous notable competitors as stated above. Generally that makes these things notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article Piruetten. The competition certainly is notable, but these six 3-4k articles are little but results tables, and can easily fit into the main article without bursting article size limit. — Sam Sailor 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Piruetten; no individual notability for annual events. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Piruetten. The parent competition has notability as a former Olympic tune-up event, but there is no independent notability for the individual year's events. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistani Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four references. Hergilei (talk) 02:48, 10 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 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uzbekistan is a country that has won a gold at the Four Continents, [9] so it's not some figure skating backwater or something. Most of the skaters listed are red-linked, because they have had strong performances on the international stage, including in T1 competitions. The Russian version of the article [10] has a couple of Russian-language news sources that seem prima facie reliable. Unless the nominator can show that there's no reliable sources in Russian that cover this event, this should stay. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 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 09:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas J. W. Drake[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Out of four sources cited, three do not mention Drake at all, while one mentions him in passing. There is no WP:significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reft sock light sock (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added valid references to this page. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]--Kakasaurus (talk) 21:20, 10 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 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any in-depth coverage of him. The references are in the main a bunch of passing mentions of his activities as a marketer and regurgitated press releases. There's nothing which covers him in sufficient depth. Only two editors have contributed to the article and in both cases this is the only article they've ever contributed to, which to me strongly suggests they're connected to the subject in some way. Neiltonks (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:SPORTSPERSON.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 24 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) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DataFeedWatch[edit]

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

From the PROD notice "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." PROD tag was removed with no attempt to address these concerns. Calton | Talk 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as, not only a clear spam campaign, but they intentionally moved and reviewed it themselves, so this wasn't a casual advertisement; next, the sources are clear advertised spam, all in all nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 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. Sandstein 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Ulysses Bond[edit]

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

While there are several references for the article, the references are mostly for after his death, and I don't think he himself is sufficiently notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:14, 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 09:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why the fuck does it matter if he wasn't notable in life? If his death generated a sensation, as it clearly did, then it deserves an article. Ethanlu121 (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable for one event only, really, dying. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local family couldn't afford funeral for local man so local newspaper appealed for local donations. A nice but very much local, non-notable story.Glendoremus (talk) 05:38, 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 merge to Time in North Korea. Without prejudice to a broader discussion about what to do with such articles. Sandstein 14:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asia/Pyongyang[edit]

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

Unnecessary stub; no inherent notability in itself; suggest merge into Time in North Korea. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only because, for whatever strange reason, time zone stubs of this sort are actually all over the place, and apparently people are happy to keep them. E.g. Antarctica/DumontDUrville, America/Bahia_Banderas, Asia/Sakhalin... doesn't seem to make much sense to kill one particular example if the type is considered fine. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either there are sources to write an article on this topic or there aren't. If the latter, the solution would be to merge the aforementioned articles into a single article/list. czar 01:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Time in North Korea. Not enough information available to support two articles. I suggest it may be worth looking into the suitability of the other timezone stubs. They look like they would be more useful being redirected to the appropriate countries, though you could argue otherwise on the basis of their Infoboxes. PriceDL (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might need a broader evaluation of what we do with article such as these. Personally I think we can safely delete it as I don't see the need for a redirect (semantic search will automatically take readers to Time in North Korea). But I would like to have some time to see how these pages are handled in general. Could this be relisted? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Please ping me if I somehow overlook this --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time in North Korea. I don't see enough to keep a separate article, and I can't imagine anyone that knows about the database this information is taken from would then try to search under that term here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for keeping but Lemongirl942 has a point in that there should be a discussion of this class of articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 23 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 List of social activities at the University of Cambridge. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Science Fiction Society[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by User:Andrew Kanaber with the following rationale "add details, de-prod". Unfortunately, I still don't see enough sources to satisfy (IMHO) NORG. We have two references to the club's own website, and two mentions in passing; the newspaper one is pretty much irrelevant per "notability is not inherited" (so it doesn't matter that someone was a member is notable and his membership in the club is mentioned on occasion). The one about the Game is cool but hardly suffices for notability. I couldn't find any better sources, and so, unless someone can dig up independent treatments of the subject, preferably in depth, discussing the society's importance to the wider world, I am afraid the only thing to do is to delete it. A mention of its at The Game (mind game) is all that at present it would deserve. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, there's nothing convincing for independent notability here and the information is barely significant or substantial. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable. Cabayi (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What WP:NORG really seems to want is a profile article in a national newspaper, which is unrealistic for a student society, excluding for the political ones where national politicians-to-be (and national newspaper journalists-to-be) cut their teeth. Instead this is a place where multiple fantasy and SF authors cut their teeth and were first published in the society magazine, as well as being the source of two nationally well known things, "the Game" and the Monster Raving Loony Party. I think that's enough to likely be of interest to those wikipedia readers who either follow a wikilink here or search for terms that produce this article as a result. Andrew Kanaber (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Kanaber: Do read and consider WP:ITSUSEFUL and other sections on that page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see this mentioned here and there, but it's all sort of sparse. I think it should be mentioned somewhere, even if it's only as a redirect to List of social activities at the University of Cambridge. It does have the one notable game, so maybe we could have a merge with that article somehow? Maybe a lead paragraph followed by the article for the game itself? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (& add) to List of social activities at the University of Cambridge#Miscellaneous societies, lacks depth of coverage needed for WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: agree with Gab4gab - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please Redirect and add to List of social activities at the University of Cambridge#Miscellaneous societies. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 26 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 Speedied as G12 by User:Ronhjones. (nac) Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTE Has been previously PROD with successful deletion, no sources were provided at the beginning of this article, therefore sending for deletion discussion. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 04:43, 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) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7 episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes of a reality show, I fail to see how there is any encyclopedic value to a list of dates and "hashtags", especially considering the amount of day-to-day detail on Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7 Jac16888 ^Talk 10:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 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 03:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The ratings numbers justify the existence of the articles, but the hashtags need to go like pet rocks did in the 70s; no encyclopedic value to those. Nate • (chatter) 03:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that; switch to Delete because all of the ratings numbers are sourced to ABS-CBN's PR department, which isn't WP:NEUTRAL in the least. Pinoy TV editors; don't source to PR. EVER! This is why your articles are regularly at AfD. Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:LISTCRUFT. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 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 keep. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raisa Modorova[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. XXN, 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a notable singer of the Tuva Republic; see for example coverage in Where Rivers and Mountains Sing: Sound, Music, and Nomadism in Tuva and Beyond. Also noted for challenging the traditional gender roles among ethnic performers. More sources are likely to exist in Russian & Tuvan languages. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:26, 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 03:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ethanlu121 (talk) 13:
Keep - Breffni Whelan She is well known in Altai.
Keep - Passes WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per other voters. Also more references could probably be found in Russian. Here is another English reference - [11]. I don't expect Russian folk singers to get much English coverage, so it should probably be a keep in good faith. Jupitus Smart 10:54, 25 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 and salt. This was speedily deleted 3 times already. This deletion is the fourth. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Wan[edit]

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

Passes neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Was de-prodded without rationale. Searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the refs used actually back up their use in the article. Should this person every become well known the article can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Marnette. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable credits found for listed filmography. Never mind notability--there's not even evidence that this isn't a hoax. --Finngall ^talk 04:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was speedied twice earlier today and once in 2010. In addition, there were two attempts at creating Grace wan in 2010. Recommend salting both titles if consensus is for deletion. --Finngall ^talk 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Absolute lack of significance and sourcing. Was created yesterday a few times apparently by the subject; now created by a "new" account. No notability, no verifiability, no justification for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm thinking about closing this per WP:SNOW. To be honest, there's just nothing out there and I can't find anything on her IMDb profile or elsewhere that would show that she would pass GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a SPI as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:14, 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 the specific parent articles, then redirect to Pennsylvania State Route System. Kurykh (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate truck routes in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Declined PROD. We do not need a list covering these alternate truck routes, details about each route can be covered in the article about the relevant main route. Editor who declined PROD noted we should preserve the information by merging it into the individual route articles, but not really necessary as most of the information in this article seems to be copy and pasted from the individual route articles. Dough4872 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the specific articles. --Rs chen 7754 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination and one "Merge" vote don't give any valid reason to delete this. The information is arrayed in a list, which provides an overall perspective about alternate truck routes. Who knew they existed, that they are systematic, that they relate to weight limits, all that? You could take any list and say merge all of its elements to other things. Why do that, though? Putting the information together is fundamentally different, and makes sense to do. --doncram 16:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it notable enough for its own article? --Rs chen 7754 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't say so. These "alternate truck" routes are just a fancy way of signing truck routes, and generally we don't do special route lists grouped by type within a state. We usually cover special routes in a list by route number such as Special routes of U.S. Route 13 or if there are so few of them cover them in a subsection of the main article as is done in U.S. Route 113. In the past few years, Pennsylvania has posted a bunch of truck or alternate truck routes after a ton of bridges had weight limits put on them, the signage practices vary by district with some such as District 6 calling them "alternate truck" routes and others such as District 5 signing them as the more standard "truck" routes. However, I see no need to have an article cherry pick only "alternate truck" routes and feel we do not need a list of all truck routes in Pennsylvania as the individual articles can cover the need. As it stands, most of this article is copy and paste from the coverage of the alternate truck routes that are covered in the individual route articles so there is really no need for it to exist to cover duplicate information. Dough4872 00:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless Merged into appropriate articles. Some of the information would be appropriately covered in the article on PA's state highway system, while the rest should be in the articles on the respective parent highways. In short, no deletion until all of the mergers have been done, and then for copyright reasons, redirect this page title to the article on the state highway system. Imzadi 1979 → 03:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The individual routes appear to be copy and pasted from the route articles they were in. The article was created in February 2016 while many of the individual routes had the routes added in 2013 or 2014 (such as here). The Purpose and History sections are unsourced speculation about these routes. We can make a mention of the creation of the alternate truck and truck routes in the Pennsylvania State Route System article and redirect this list there in order to keep it for attribution. Dough4872 03:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a mention of the truck and alternate truck routes to the history of the Pennsylvania State Route System article. Dough4872 03:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sub-sections of parent highway articles per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTTRAVEL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Already G11-ed by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exit ballads[edit]

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

No independent coverage in reliable sources. At best, probably too soon for a WP article. Boneymau (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional material for a musical that may never be staged. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:32, 24 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) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Abdel Kouddous[edit]

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

Still nothing for actual independent notability and the listed sources are merely announcements, events, mentions and all similar, none of it substantiates or bestow him the needed notability; searches in fact mirrors this and the history shows there were no attempts to show this could in fact be improved. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 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 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a journalist without the level of coverage of him, as opposed to works by him, to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 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 merge to International Brigades. In a selective manner. No consensus to delete outright, but there are "keep" opinions that are mere votes, and basically most editors seem to agree that this could be an encyclopedic topic but that the current content is unsatisfactory and should not be retained as an article. This does not preclude a more competently written spin-off article later. Sandstein 13:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism in International Brigades[edit]

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

This article, although extensively footnoted, fails to establish that it is about a known topic, rather than one identified by the original editor. It appears to be largely original research and synthesis, and in fact reads much more like a undergraduate thesis than an encyclopaedia article. RolandR (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The real problem here is the lack of secondary sources. Some existing citations like Beevor and Prago are perfectly fine as sources. I had already removed the worst parts and fake citations from this horrid article. There also exist some other useable references like this, this, this, this (p. 307), and probably this. The topic is notable, but just barely. It still needs to be extensively rewritten, and large parts of the article thrown away. This could be merged with International Brigades, if this eventually shrinks into a stub due to the original research problems. I would still prefer trying to fix it. Ceosad (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The subject may or may not be notable, but the article is a mess. It's written in the passive voice, none of the opinions are attributed, and it reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SYNTH. Unsereveranstaltungen attributes a Stein 2015 book but doesn't even identify the book itself! It's one of the primary references and there's no book title, ISBN, etc. This certainly reads like an essay and I suspect this should have been written in an academic environment rather than self-published here. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book in question is Sygmunt Stein, Moja wojna w Hiszpanii, Kraków 2015, ISBN 9788308055243. I removed over 49 kilobytes of the article a few days ago. Here is a link to an old revision that identifies all of the works. The article in that shape should indeed have been published somewhere else than on Wikipedia... Ceosad (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While WP prefers secondary sources, primary ones are not forbidden. Stein 2015 certainly needs to be identified, as do any others lost by pruning to what is now an appropriate length. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to identify teh apparantley remove source cited as "Stein".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: The Spanish Civil War: A Modern Tragedy, George R. Esenwein, Routledge, 2005, has a substantial, sourced section on Anti-Semitism in the International Brigades.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definetly notable, TNT or extensivly copyedit to make it encyclopedic. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a short section International Brigades. Article is sourced, but it is nevertheless a POV ESSAY that attempts to tar the Marxist International Brigades with antisemitism, a phenomenon not found among the Republicans. Well, of course there was no antisemitism among the Republicans, there were virtually no Jews in Spain and no Jewish volunteers went to Spain to volunteer with the Falange because the Falange was fascist. By contrast, Jews form around the world flocked to join the popular Front, in part because Marxism had enormous support among the Jewish working class and intellectuals of the era, and in part because, well, Spain was the one place in the world where you could volunteer for a war in which you could pick up a gun and shoot a Fascist. Was there antisemitism within the Popular front? Undoubtedly; there was antisemitism everywhere in the 1930s. A small section on this topic at International Brigades is sensible. We can redirect teh salvageable bits there or we should Delete this poorly-sourced POV ESSAY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A vote for deletion because of essay wp:TNT leaps out at me. Such votes are always invalid, and concede the validity of the topic, as laid out in essay wp:TNTTNT (named that way because TNT should be blown up). Tag for ((rewrite)), sure. --do ncr am 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you have given zero reasoning as to how this article meets notability guidelines. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mark of sad desperation when an editor is reduced to citing his own essay. Why not be honest and say we should keep it because you like it? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like an instance on an editor committed to a principle. Please WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:, I hope you'll revisit and consider the arguments for redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following edits intended as improvements to the original entry, it now features 1) inconsistent footnotes 2) since edits were mostly about cutting out sentences, those left do not form logical sequences and at times make no rhyme or reason at all 3) paragraphs dealing with key questions, "what was anti-Semitism in IB?" and "how much was anti-Semitism there in IB?" are entirely cut out, which makes what is left discussing peripheral issues. All in all: the original entry was certainly far from perfect, but following the improvemts made it is now a pathetic, disorganized sham.--Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Unsereveranstaltungen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. created this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

would you agree the above is a nice sample of stigmatization? --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ethanlu121 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Brigades; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. The current version is eligible for WP:TNT with statements such as "It seems that in 1936 it was international politics..." etc, which looks to be editorialising / OR. The article in general spends too much on general discussion, including the poverty of Jews in Eastern Europe, which is off topic for the article. A redirect will preserve the article history, and whatever is reliably cited can be used in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 6 keep, 4 delete, 2 redirect. Non admin closure plz. No !votes in 5 days.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this needs to be assessed and closed by an admin. Two of the Keep 'votes' offered no reasons whatsoever, the original author of the article has 'voted' delete, and the arguments need to be considered, not simply counted. RolandR (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with RolandR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Antisemitism in Spain. The antisemitism of the Spanish Left is notable, as is that of the Right. They are distinct phenomena and this article was clearly an intention to delve into a more unsavoury aspect of the Second Republic. As it stands, however, it is a mess. The lead, for instance, refers to the Nationalists as if they have something to do with the topic. Whatever was worthwhile in the original version can be incorporated into Antisemitism in Spain, a rich topic where currently all the history is crammed into the lead. Srnec (talk) 03:02, 24 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 The Kapil Sharma Show#Episode list. Please consider WP:ATD before nominating anything for deletion. postdlf (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Kapil Sharma Show episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redundant list - information already appears in The Kapil Sharma Show#Episode list. Previous AfD discussion procedurally closed by myself due to its confusing, non standard format. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Kapil Sharma Show#Episode list. There's no need for a separate article at the moment as the episode list is brief enough to not unnecessarily lengthen the article. — Yash^talk stalk 09:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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) 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Cheek[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only citing WP:ROUTINE sources. Closest I can find to a independent secondary coverage was this article from his hometown newspaper that profiles him (I found a player analysis profile on SB Nation, but since the author doesn't use a name on it, it appears to be a fan-made profile). Also fails WP:NHOCKEY per never playing in a high enough league, WP:TOOSOON for the AHL (averaging about 40 games per season and decreasing appearances at 24-years-old, he needs another 34 games, so maybe next season), and no individual awards in any league. Can be un-deleted in the future if he does achieve any of the criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another article on a non-notable hockey player. Is there no end to these articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 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) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda (Paulina Rubio House)[edit]

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

Non-notable house for a singer. It was on an episode of MTV cribs, but that doesn't establish notability. There is no other coverage about his house. Whpq (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article also inappropriately uses ((Infobox NRHP)) when the house is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places nor will be even eligible for consideration for several more decades provided its original architecture remains intact by then. Fortguy (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagene (bus stop)[edit]

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

Non notable bus stop. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Among other problems, the article is completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single bus stop would have to be remarkable to be worth a dedicated article and, as far as I can tell, this isn't. WP:BUSOUTCOMES supports that too Mortee (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Mortee says...Charles (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with the above. Nothing notable. MB 05:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus stops are not inherently notable. WP:NOTTRAVEL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:06, 24 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. salted now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connecthings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Does not meet GNG, no reliable source and was previously nominated for Deletion on grounds of Promo WikiThreatcontrol (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G4, doesn't seem to be substantially different from when it was deleted previously multiple times as per this AFD discussion or the multiple other G11 speedy deletes. Pishcal (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still the same as the other four times it was deleted. Promotional, and nothing else. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axlfolie[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP about a non-notable record producer, citing only a self-published website. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good faith google search isn't turning up independent, reliable sources showing notability. He's mentioned in passing in a couple of articles about the artists he's produced, but that's not enough for notability on his own.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Can't find anything about him outside of THC, which doesn't even appear to be notable itself either. PriceDL (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kellymoat (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable record producer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 24 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.