< 31 December	2 January >

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

The result was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth chord (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This was never really needed. All of the linked topics are now discussed in the article sixth chord. This page is the result of a bit of a snafu - over two years ago, major 6th chord redirected to sixth chord, but someone reversed that situation and rather than copying the content of the latter directly to the former, they rewrote it to awkwardly place too much emphasis specifically on the major sixth chord. I saw that at the top of major 6th chord was a massive, clunky hatnote with all of the topics listed on this page given in it. I create disambig pages when I see things like that, which was my only intention here, and in the process I made sixth chord a redirect to this page; I was then reverted by BD2412 because as it turns out this buried a perfectly good article at sixth chord that was emptied and clumsily transplanted for no good reason and entirely without a discussion, let alone consensus. I have since restored the status quo as of two years ago, and I have discovered that all of the topics listed & linked here are discussed in detail at the current sixth chord article (with links to full articles where appropriate). (Addendum 08:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC): It helps that I was distracted by the hat note; usually I'd see "major 6th chord" next to "sixth chord" and assume the latter should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC whose article would include the former, but I was stuck seeing it as the other way around since "major 6th chord" was where the hat note was and I immediately went into "this is the PRIMARYTOPIC by virtue of having such a hat note" mode.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion. Horrorist sums up the situation just right. bd2412 T 23:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no objection, I've placed a speedy deletion tag on it accordingly. Anyone is free to remove it in case they wish to extend this Afd, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Concern was: only two sources, neither reliable, notwithstanding which, neither source actually states that a station was seriously considered. There are now five sources, of which none are exactly reliable: one is a blog, one is either a book, paper or journal published by Hornsey Historical Society; and the third new one is a local newspaper, but there is neither the title of the article, the page, or a URL where the item may be viewed. We still have nothing that verifies that a station was definitely going to be built (compare e.g. North End tube station or Bushey Heath tube station) nor that it would have had this name. Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Piccadilly Line Extension - The Diamond Anniversary (1992) notes that there was, "a move to build an additional station at Harringay," and details the justifications against it (pages 8-9). The Piccadilly Tube (2007) also notes an early proposal for a station at St Anne's Lane (page 68). It is notable that while we have Category:Unbuilt London Underground stations, most of them appear to come under the 1902-1905 Central line extension which never got close to happening. In contrast, St Anne's was suggested for a line that did eventually get built. The proposal clearly existed at one point, and was serious enough that active justifications were formulated for not going ahead with it. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is a section in Christian Barman's The Man Who Built London Transport: A Biography of Frank Pick where Barman discusses Pick's rejection of a station between Manor House and Turnpike Lane. The rejection was on functional and economic reasons. Barman does not mention a specific location proposed for a station (p. 94):

"At the northern end, where the new tracks were being built, the wider spacing of the new stations was severely criticised by local interests. A particular cause of complaint was the distance of nearly 1½ miles between Manor House and Turnpike Lane. Pick was obstinate in his refusal to put an intermediate station between these two. A railway line with stations spaced half, or even three-quarters of a mile, apart was bound to be inefficient. And moreover this Line was going to be a perfect model of the functional unification of the various forms of transport. At every stopping point between Cockfosters and Manor House existing bus and tram routes converged on the station from different directions. But between Manor House and Turnpike Lane there were no such points of confluence, the railway trains ran parallel to the road services: if a station were to be built on this stretch it would be of no help in connecting rail and road services together.

According to Eitan Karol's Charles Holden: Architect, when Pick commissioned Charles Holden in August 1929 to produce the designs for stations on the Piccadilly line's northern extension, only the ones we have now were on the list (p. 333). This indicates an outright refusal from Pick to even consider a station in this section as a matter of principle and shows that there was no design work carried out for it.

A review of reporting in The Times of the proposals for the Piccadilly tube extension north from Finsbury Park finds a report from 21 October 1929 (pg. 14; Issue 45339) discussing the urgent need for a bill to be submitted to parliament to meet the November deadline on railway bills. This includes a small map labelled "original scheme" showing station locations in Manor House, Turnpike Lane, Wood Green, Bounds Green and New Southgate, but with nothing between the first two. On 5 November, The Times reports the scheme as being an extension to Cockfosters (diverted to the more northerly route via Arnos Grove).

It certainly was not an approved station that was dropped later, which might have warranted an entry in the list of unopened stations. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems more suited to inclusion in the Picadilly Line article than as an article.Charles (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything in reliable sources that actually verifies a station was going to be built with exactly this specific name, although as David says, the proposed extension is covered. In other words, this article is pure original research as it stands and we cannot have it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is retained I think the station should be added to the article List of former and unopened London Underground stations. I would also note there are comparable articles on proposed stations eg Heathfield Terrace tube station, which is worth considering when discussing its deletion. That said this article seems limited as it stands. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the unbuilt stations on that list such as Heathfield Terrace actually had parliamentary approval for construction, although they were, for various reasons, not subsequently built. From the evidence, a station at St Ann's Road never even got to the stage of being considered by the UERL. If we were to include stations that were just requested or considered, we would need to add, literally, dozens of station sites. Many bills were submitted to parliament for construction or extension of tube lines with station locations identified and large numbers of these bills were withdrawn or failed to get approval. For example, the Piccadilly, City and North East London Railway, the Kearney High-Speed Tube, the Edgware Road and Victoria Railway, the New Cross & Waterloo Railway or the 1902 proposal to turn the Central London Railway into a loop line.--DavidCane (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on this I think that what you say is valid. Looking at the other unbuilt/unopened stations which have article all clearly got much further than a vague proposal which all the evidence seems to point to this 'proposed station' being. On that basis delete seems reasonable and entirely appropriate. Dunarc (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging and redirecting (presumably to the list of unopened stations) seems to me to be clearly superior to an outright deletion of this article. We should be looking actively for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion. Leaving a redirect behind preserves the edit history in case more content becomes available. And the Talk page would preserve a link to this learned AFD discussion, helping any future editor considering re-starting the article. But I am not familiar enough with this to say whether this should simply be merged vs. kept outright. --do ncr am 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: The article's creator has something of a history in creating articles for railway stations and lines that never got off the drawing board (in some cases they never got on to the drawing board). At best, these are WP:CRYSTALballing; but some were wishful thinking on their part - if not outright WP:HOAXing. Their MO seems to be to look for mentions of consultations or feasibility studies, and treat them as if they were firm, fully-funded proposals. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:As I said above, all of the unopened stations on List of former and unopened London Underground stations were fully approved. There is no value in adding a speculative station to that list. It's a featured list and the sources provided for Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station would not satisfy an FL review. The most that should be done is to add a piece into the article on the Piccadilly line about the calls from locals for a station between Manor Road and Turnpike Lane and why Frank Pick rejected these. --DavidCane (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure that this needs a second relisting, but, to be clear, my position is that this article should be deleted. It seems clear enough that this "station" was never proposed. --DavidCane (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Has been here long enough.Charles (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing the arguments above, there seems to be little to no value of including information about a proposed yet nonexistent stop.Timtempleton (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rinspeed zaZen[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources have ever been provided for this article. There is no evidence of significance, notability is claimed only by inheritance. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added three references to the article, which could be greatly expanded. It didn't take much effort to find these. MB 00:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rinspeed with other concept cars there. Not enough meat for a standalone article. Nobody seems to be writing about it anymore.Timtempleton (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Charles Okwelume[edit]

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

Was deprodded after the addition of a link to his LinkedIn profile. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BIO, searches turned up zero on the search engines, except for some brief mentions on books, and a single brief mention on news (using the name variant, Obii Okwelume). He is an author, and has published some books, but that does not indicate notability. His citation count is very low. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no clear notability, but very highly over personal and -- presumably -- self promotional, almost to the extent fo a G11 speedy. If he ever does become notable, a new article should be started. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Sink[edit]

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

Notability is NOT Inhereted gidonb (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
REmove article -- We might merge it somewhere, but both of the blue-link articles is likely to be too high level for it to fit. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only claim to notability is a petition with 197 signatures Spiderone 07:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming it's true, and 197 random people signed a petition to keep it, this is not an encyclopedia article; it's a soapbox, to mix metaphors. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if true, still trivia, not notable and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bucay, Ecuador[edit]

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

This article has no sources, and is mostly written like an advertisement. Evking22 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to exist [[1]] as a populated place and therefore meets WP:GEOLAND MB 03:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does seem to be a real designated place. [2] There's nothing particularly advertising-looking in the article and even if there was that would be a matter of regular editing, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "No sources" in the article is a valid reason for tagging the article with ((refimprove)) or the like, but it is not a valid reason for deletion. And there is obligation to do some research on the topic, before nominating an article for deletion. --do ncr am 05:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion is not the appropriate outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article that needs work needs work but does why should it get deleted if it meets WP:GEOLAND "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." --Jersey92 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Populated location. The article needs improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. -- Dane ^talk 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge into General_Antonio_Elizalde_Canton or vice-versa. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderbilt Historical Review[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon." DePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "(I added a doi. The journal has been referenced by an art gallery in Argentina (http://proa.org/esp/exhibicion-kazimir-malevich-textos.php). Other pages exist for similar journals (Tufts Historical Review, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal, Stance)". Having a DOI is standard for any journal (like having an ISSN) and has no bearing on notability. Whether proa.org is a reliable source I don't know, but in any case a translation of an article from this journal does hardly contribute to notability. That other pages exist for similar journals is probably true (I haven't looked at the journals mentioned), but either those have sufficient sources or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly believe selectivity is a requirement for a Wikipedia page. The purpose of history journals at the undergraduate level is to promote the study of research and spread awareness for such historical events and methodologies. Much like the Tufts Historical Review, Critique (journal), and the Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, this journal helps to expand opportunities for learning. The Wikipedia page simply stands as a biography of what the journal is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historywriter23 (talk • contribs)
- We do have to be selective in what we include in Wikipedia, Historywriter23. You can read our inclusion criteria for academic journals at WP:NJOURNALS. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be a consideration?: "Many journals are non-notable by themselves, but are published by notable organizations. While a journal may not be worthy of having its own article, it can be helpful to include some information about the journal in the publisher's article. For instance the Nepali Mathematical Sciences Report is one of the publications of the Nepal Mathematical Society, and while the society is notable own its own, this journal is not. But since the journal is an important part of the society's activity, the article on the society should mention the journal."[3] I think that this journal has significance for the history department at Vanderbilt (http://as.vanderbilt.edu/history/undergraduate/vhr.php). Historywriter23.
Merge and redirect to Vanderbilt University#Student life. As you'd expect with a recently founded undergrad journal, this doesn't independently meet WP:NJOURNAL. But per Historywriter23's comment above, it's worth including a (greatly trimmed down) mention in the university's article. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what if I create a department of history page and put it under its own heading? (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_Department_of_History). I can trim it down as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historywriter23 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure that merging is a good idea. AT this point, this periodical has produced a grand total of 2 issues. Suppose it tanks after 4 issues, would we then still think that it would be worth while to devote a section of the article on the school/student life/department to it? Remember: we have no deadline. Some patience may be at its place here. If this still exists after a couple of years, it might either be notable enough for its own article or for a section elsewhere. But at this point, I don't think it is even certain yet that this will survive and merit any mention anywhere... --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Historywriter23: The way these discussions work is that we wait a while (typically a week) for a consensus to emerge on what to do with the article, then they are formally closed by an administrator and we act on that decision – so it's best to hold off doing anything major (i.e. merging) until that happens. Having an article on individual university departments is the exception rather than the rule, so if you did want to create that article you would have to ensure there were sufficient sources that discuss the Vanderbilt history department specifically, and are independent of the university. – Joe (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails both GNG and NJOURNAL; article is promotional, trying to use WP to give more gravitas to a startup journal. Jytdog (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete (or merge) -- no doubt a journal with worthy intentions, but wholly NN. No objection to a brief addition to a some other article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vanderbilt University#Student life per WP:TOOSOON; the journal is not yet notable per available sources. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a newly founded and undergraduate journal, this faces a very high bar for notability, and presents no evidence of passing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Interesting articles. I imagine with the resources at Vanderbilt it will survive, but maybe too soon for WP with only 3 issues. I'd support merging, as it would be easy enough to edit Vanderbilt University#Student life if the journal fails. Jacknstock (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hankey Group[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:ORGIND since all but the Forbes reference are from the firm's websites and as a result reads like an ad. Additionally after a search I cannot find any sources which would establish notability for this firm. Finally it only links to and has links from the founders article and no other article. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even before I just expanded the article, none of these concerns were valid, and all could have easily been addressed. They were founded in 1972, employ 2,000 people and have $4 billion in assets. If that's not a notable company, what is? They are privately held, and their main business is subprime car loans, so it is not surprising that they avoid publicity, but there is enough information out there. Edwardx (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets the GNG standard. It has proper referencing and should be here on Wikipedia. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG. $4 billion in assets. References.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to meet the WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 11:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt City (Band)[edit]

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

Collaboration project with several notable musicians but virtually no coverage from independent sources for an EP that was released today. Just seems too soon. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NMUSIC and GNG for now, but it appears to be TOOSOON. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The band and its work don't inherit notability from members, and I'm not finding coverage that shows notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 24 hours after their debut is almost certainly too soon. I'm not finding any sources at all, but with the caveat that they appear to have chosen an unfortunate name that is both a fairly common descriptor, as well as the name of an apparently popular brewing company. TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 11:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Merlin of Xanth[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters in this family tree have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every fictional family tree on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a family tree which spans dozens of novels should be kept. Keeping track of the relationships in the Xanth series is easier with family trees. LA (T) @ 19:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- LA, would you be willing to do the work to incorporate these articles into a more central List of Xanth characters? It would require some work to selectively trim and restructure the articles, but it's probably the most viable way that you could (to use your word) save this content. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable concept. It is not mentioned in-depth as a family by reliable sources. We don't have non-notable family articles like this for real people, let alone imaginary ones.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already copied to http://xanth.wikia.com/wiki/Family_of_Merlin and edited this year by the person who created the article here on Wikipedia years before then. I think things like this are better on the ad funded wikia than on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 04:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Dream Focus that this is more appropriate for a wikia than Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced collection of cruft on some minor fictional characters. Like the various other Xanth articles that have come up on AFD, it should be Deleted, as the article name seems to have been created by the article's author, and thus is not a valid search term. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Gourd of Xanth[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a character list based on where the character can be found within the worlds of Xanth. LA (T) @ 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge somewhere. The title, at present, is very confusing; identifying the subject of the article is not easy. No reliable sources are cited, meaning I have to question whether we need this level of detail. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable collection of characters. Also, its title is really weird. (Although that's not really a reason to delete.)--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced collection of cruft on some minor fictional characters. Like the various other Xanth articles that have come up on AFD, it should be Deleted, as the article name seems to have been created by the article's author, and thus is not a valid search term. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk literature[edit]

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

This is a trivial list of in-universe works that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not really seeing this one. The content seems incredibly trivial. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very trivial cruft with no independent sources, and not even a claim of notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruft in extremis. Neutrality^talk 03:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flanaess. T. Canens (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flan (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to≈ Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess. I'm not sure how much should be kept, but that seems like the best place for it. An alternative would be a merge to Human (Dungeons & Dragons) in anticipation of further mergers there in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [[Flanaess]. Minor fictional sub-race of humans with no non-primary sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted criterion G5 (sockpuppet creation) and salted. I have also deleted Draft:StyleWe. Anyone reviewing this should note that the content of these two pages as well as the previously deleted article were bit-for-bit identical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StyleWE[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:COMPANY. Listed sources are almost all self-published blog posts. I see no reasons for inclusion. Malunrenta (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created by a possible sock[4]. Previous attempt was speedy died[5] under CSD G11 and A7. A draft already exists Draft:StyleWe which has not been submitted to AFC yet. Malunrenta (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; Wikipedia is not a space for hosting investor prospectus materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Tower, Jaipur[edit]

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

This article has been Speedily Deleted previously under WP:G11 - the article has being recreated complete with months-old improvement tag. I request Deletion & Salting of this article - WP:SNOW may apply here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation of this. I have tagged the article accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted via Prod at Gaurav Tower. I have removed the copyright content and the G12 tag. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Diannaa: Is there anything in the prodded article that would help this discussion? Also, what was the source you have been looking at? Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the copy vio was this Wordpress document. The prodded article was unsourced, and its content was

Gaurav Towers (abbreviated as GT) are actually a group of buildings situated in Jaipur city of India. Location : Near Malviya Nagar Pulia, Malviya nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Gaurav Towers is the most happening joint in Jaipur, attracts both shoppers and fun seekers. Spread across a sprawling area of 25,000 sq meters, GT is perfect in terms of ambience, space, variety and hassle free parking.

No sources, no coords. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Changes made to the article, to remove copyrighted content, have reduced the article to a single-sentence unreferenced stub. There's no claim of notability in the article, meaning the General Notability Guidelines can't possibly be met. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, Wikipedia's notability is determined outside of Wikipedia. See also WP:DEL7, which even there an article with no sources requires evidence from a search that sources are not available. If you want to delete because the article has no sources, cite the policy WP:IAR, and explain why ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and there's absolutely no substance here. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I just removed a speedy deletion tag by User:SwisterTwister, who doesn't think that 117 stores, which ICSC classifies as a super-regional mall, is an indicia of significance. Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources beyond ads and social media. I don't believe I have ever previously seen an argument that number of stores is a significant factor in notabililty discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So an editor who has spent three minutes preparing a !vote doesn't draw your attention, but evidence that this topic is in the largest category used in industry standards, is a reason to declare your ignorance of shopping malls and dis the evidence? I don't get it. Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this comment was directed at me - no ping, which is odd, so I can't be sure - then I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that WP:G11 can be applied without any time restriction. Therefore, there's no reason for my AfD to draw any attention. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: No, this comment was not directed at you. If you know how to read indents, I was responding to User:Eggishorn. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm just trying to see which user spent 3 minutes preparing a !vote - nothing draws my attention. Never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battles involving the Sikh Empire. Seems to be a useful search term, nominate at WP:RFD if you disagree. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battles fought by Sikhs[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. The criteria for inclusion is unclear as I'm sure there were even Sikhs involved in WW2, for example. It's not as well defined as the similar list Battles involving the Sikh Empire. Spiderone 13:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a list based on nothing more than Religion/Ethnic Origin. As the nomination says, it fails the GNG and its inclusion criteria aren't clear. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- inclusion criteria not well defined. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It wouldn't be possible to develop sensible inclusion criteria here, not least as Sikh individuals have fought alongside people from other faiths on many, many occasions - often as part of mixed-faith military forces. This seems to be an attempt to present Sikhs as somehow being an always-separate group, which of course is total nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic is already covered in Battles involving the Sikh Empire, perhaps the creator of the article was not aware of its existence.--Catlemur (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There seems to be a lot of lists relating to things in the subcontinent by religion/ethnicity (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_presidents_of_Indian_National_Congress). It seems to me there is interest in such lists, but I don't think they fit wikipedia guidelines. In this case, though, Battles involving the Sikh Empire covers a good deal of what will be removed, and much of the rest is a bit OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Battles involving the Sikh Empire. This will have the effect of purging the article of battles where Sikhs were part of forces under British (or other) command. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user below; the Sikh Empire and Sikhs, in general, are different things. The Sikh Empire is limited to a specific time in history whereas Sikhs are still in armed forces today I imagine. Spiderone 16:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -Inclusion criteria is ill defined.Sikhs had and continue to fight as part of numerous multi-faith forces. The proposal to redirect also does not hold.Sikhs are not equal to the Sikh Empire! The ambit and scope of the article is too vat and non-definite.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:R v Lee. There is consensus that the person does not meet WP:BLP1E, but no consensus that the event is non-notable. Therefore I have moved it to the draft namespace to allow the article to be rewritten to be about the event. Then it can be moved back to the main namespace, and if anyone so desires, renominated for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist)[edit]

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

Negatively written attack article with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not tabloid news Kenny Beer (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. I'm tempted to nominate this for G10, even though it is "well sourced" to various primary sources. Daß Wölf 02:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia should not be a place to humiliate someone forever for one mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a "mistake" and something which, as the article makes clear, has had a profound effect of pharmacies in the UK. As the article says, "The case has been used since that time in pharmacy education." This is not "tabloid news" - just look at the sources. My criticism would be that the article is too long, but that is an argument for editing, not deleting. Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references for that statement anywhere in the article. I've found this, however: "A national effort to decriminalize dispensing errors was catalyzed by the case. One report said of Elizabeth Lee, "It’s up to us to complete the job and ensure her legacy is as the pharmacist who brought an end to criminal prosecutions for dispensing errors."[26] Attempts to change the law are still ongoing as of 2016." (As an aside, the linked "report" is not signed, contains spelling errors, and appears to me to be written in far too familiar language to be official.) I would read this as saying that this event had no lasting consequences in the past 6-9 years. No law was changed and no other progress has been alleged, sourced or not. And even if there was, it should not be summarised at Elizabeth Lee (pharmacist), but at something in the vein of 2010 UK pharmacy reform (or, more probably, as a sentence or two in Pharmacies in the United Kingdom or the like, since laws, edicts and training materials aren't inherently notable). Daß Wölf 18:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References added with minor revision. Rok2thedrop 23:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Rok2thedrop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete fails the rules of 1 event, especially for living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the BBC and Telegraph story, all sources are not reliable. Despite this incident being a temporary news event, it does not meet the guidelines of notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E is not met; it requires all three conditions to be satisfied. WP:BLP1E "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" is not met; a Department of Health Impact Assessment proposing the decriminalization of inadvertent dispensing errors referred to the case [31] and it was referred to in December 2016 following a similar error, again in the context of the call to change to UK law (i.e. not just in relation to the error itself). ^[1] ^[2]. It was also referred to in relation to workplace stress in a University of Manchester research paper in 2013 [5]. WP:BLP1E "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is not met, as evidenced by the number and breadth of references. WP:BLP1E "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" is not met because the event was significant (as demonstrated by the number of references) and the individual's role was substantial and well documented - the event reached the Royal Court of Appeal and catalyzed and/or was referred to by the name of the individual in circa 10 years of subsequent discussions about preventing pharmacists being subject to criminal prosecution for inadvertent dispensing errors (for the significance of this, consider the number of medicines dispensed in the UK each year and the need for pharmacists to be able to openly report dispensing errors in order to learn from them). Coverage is persistent (see references in this comment above) and [4] from 21st March 2016. The user nominating for deletion did not detail what was negatively written or what was an attack. Sources include national newspapers, trade press including a well established journal, University presentations and research papers and a determination from the Royal Court of Appeal.Rok2thedrop 23:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Rok2thedrop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Given this is as said by the article creator, yes what she did wasn't a good thing, this sound like a tabloid style crusade to discredit somebody and your point proves that. Kenny Beer (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think BLP1E has been accounted for here. With respect to the first condition, the sources you provided indeed cover the person, but they cover her only in the context of the court case, therefore meeting this condition of BLP1E. Condition #2 remains likely for a similar reason -- there is almost no information about Elizabeth Lee available beyond the matters of the court case. The only other piece of info I could find about her was her age. Condition #3, I agree that this event is probably notable and likely deserves its own article, but it's not nearly notable enough to warrant an article about Elizabeth Lee. To compare with the example in WP:BLP1E, the article on John Hinckley Jr. has a good 1,500 words of content not concerning the Reagan assassination attempt, and would have no trouble standing on its own two feet if the assassination info were removed. This article, on the other hand, would remain a one-sentence stub. Daß Wölf 00:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider rename The breadth and scope of reporting on the case goes beyond the minimums required to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lawyer: Martin White's sentencing is 'shocking and wrong', Chemist and Druggist, 21st December 2016
^ Why the case of Martin White is a stark reminder for us all, Chemist and Druggist, 12th December 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on the possibility on making the article about the event rather than the person, as has been proposed. Sandstein 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first two elements of WP:BLP1E are clearly met. The subject is covered only in the context of the single inadvertent dispensing error. The subject remains, is likely to remain, and apparently wants to remain, a low-profile individual. The third element is likely also met because, standing alone, the underlying event is not significant. As stated in WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." The potential exists that much of the content could be merged into another article (e.g., Pharmacy#Issues_in_pharmacy) or an article that covers decriminalization of dispensing errors, but the fact that none have been referenced so far (and I could not find any), suggests that such is not a notable subject either.--Rpclod (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion The court case and its ramifications are, I would have thought, of importance, given the effect on the pharmacy trade in the UK. How about renaming the article after the case, R v Lee, and trimming accordingly. Emeraude (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by author's request. Peridon (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristof Bilsen[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Documentary film director - no in-depth coverage in reliable sources; I found one festival interview ([6]) and another on a blog/minor portal ([7]). Perhaps there is more in non-Engish sources, but they are not in the article, nor do I see anything like it. Nothing in GNews. Won some awards, but they seem minor. I don't see how he passes WP:CREATIVE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the reason the nominator gives, this seems to have been created by someone associated with this person or their production house(based on the creator's original username) perhaps to promote this person. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. T. Canens (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016[edit]

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

Every ordinance is not notable. Another one from the endless stable of spinoff articles created by Junosoon w.r.t. to the events concerned with demonetisation.Could well be deleted or at the least merged as a paragraph on 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation.Do not warrant a stand-alone article.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 12:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. The topics are closely related, and there is not enough substance here for a standalone article. Vanamonde (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. The author is creating endless articles related to demonetisation event in India. Would request some admins to warn the author. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Out of the seven sources in [8], the Inc source is pretty good, and the CNN source looks promising though it's unclear from the discussion whether it should be considered sufficient. The other five sources are all blog-like posts. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talent stack[edit]

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

Google search shows that the only uses of this phrase are quoting Scott Adams. The phrase does not really appear to have passed into common usage and is not a notable neologism. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes I would agree that it's the very textbook definition of WP:NEO, so far. A Google Books search, tellingly, reveals nothing. It's been discussed on a few blog posts because the Dilbert creator used it to defend Donald Trump and in a way his own perspicacity in supporting Trump, I guess -- and the article is referenced with a couple of non-notable blogs now discussing this concept as a way to assess the true merits of Donald Trump. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not be celebrating Donald Trump or any of his supporters. Scott Adams may have helped create the term and get people using it, but this seems like a forced attempt to get pro-Trump propaganda onto Wikipedia and I cannot stand for it. I think this should be deleted or replaced with one that makes no positive mentions of Trump. 68.235.53.60 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — 68.235.53.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you're urging that this document be deleted because you don't like the politics of people related to it, that disqualifies your argument. An argument for deletion should be based on notability, not on bitterness about losing an election. 2601:602:9802:99B2:C486:C5D:6760:CF83 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, it seems like the only argument for deleting this is that a couple of motivated individuals don't like the political views of the person who invented the concept, so it should be deleted. Isn't that the definition of a severe bias? This is a term used by a number of different sites describing a fairly original concept, it's far from some one-offed neologism. If a few overly-zealous contributors don't like the political views of the man who invented the concept, that's a personal problem. They shouldn't be projecting their biases onto what is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia.148.74.131.25 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could point to bona fide reliable sources that show how this doesn't fall afoul of WP:NEO in the most obvious way, I'd change my position. (A handful of non-notable personal blogs aren't going to do it though). Shawn in Montreal (talk)
Keep. We don't delete terms simply because a few politically motivated Wikipedians don't like the fact that someone used the term who also wasn't sufficiently hateful towards a Politician they do not like. In addition, it clearly describes something that actually exists in the real world, and does so in the most plain language I have seen. KiTA (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) We don't catalogue phrases simply because, someone, somewhere "used the term." We require more than merely WP:ITEXISTS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikitory similar to things like Chewbacca defense or D'oh! exist. Unless a lot more content is added then keep. But since it is not too large moving it might be the best temp solution. --Cs california (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Wiktionary entry has been created (by the same user, I suspect) and is also being challenged there. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - politics is not a valid reason for deletion. Whilst usage definitely spikes around June 2016, there's usage at least as far back as 2012 on Google Trends. Would also support a move to wiktionary. ReidE96 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Wiktionary per ReidE96. Has valid usage, article is relatively good quality, doesn't fail the WP:NEO test. No reason to delete. K_arunamon ^Talk 02:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at WP:NEO for a sec. We've got cited usage by many secondary sources, including news media. Right there, boom, we're done, that policy hurdle was just passed. That being said, I think this would do better as a dictionary entry, since the opening paragraph is pretty much all there is, and this article will never be anything but a stub. K_arunamon ^Talk 01:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this passes WP:NEO. At least four of the sources are self published (and I'm not sure if The Hip Pocket is RS), and with only one (maybe two) reliable sources using the term, it seems to fall squarely in the category of "little or no usage in reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torven (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a related article - I think it's worth noting that the term is describing a similar concept to a technology/solution stack, just as an applicable term to a person's skillset. If 'talent stack' is too small for its own page, perhaps merge it with Solution stack. Personally I feel the difference is appreciable enough for it to stand on its own. Deltorva (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not liking a person is not a reason to delete a wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackMagic (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable, only coverage is blog posts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Politics is indeed a poor reason for deletion, and I'm confident such reasoning will be ignored by the closing admin, but politics is also a poor reason to keep. This article falls squarely under WP:Neologism, and the current sourcing is either primary or unreliable blogs. I searched around and couldn't find any commentary, not even brief mentions, from reliable secondary sources. A phrase that's just a few months old isn't ready for prime time. If it has staying power and picks up some actual coverage and analysis, it could be revisited later. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The Inc. source is actually pretty good, but it's the only one I see that fits our source requirements. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also older than the recent article from Scott Adams, and it goes into pretty great detail on application and explanation of what a talent stack is. The Inc source is probably the best one. Wikinium (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources may not ALL be absolutely flawless, but they are adequate for article retention. "Talent stack" is not a neologism, it's already being used enough to have its own article. Also, it appears that some of the people that want this deleted seem to want it deleted because it has to do with Donald Trump.Wikinium (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has also covered this (screenshot). Wikinium (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looking at the seven sources in this version: both the Medium ones don't qualify, as they're essentially self-published. The Danger and Play and Barrie Bramley ones are personal blogs. Based on its about page, The Hip Pocket doesn't look to have any editorial staff. As stated above, the Inc. source is the best one. The Adams blog post is primary, so can't establish notability, unless the suggestion is that he didn't coin the phrase, but he mentioned it previously way back in January. But in my experience it's tough to support a keep with only a single qualifying source. If there were more information on the CNN coverage, that might help. The only thing I could find was this, which is just a passing mention. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are now seven references from different publishers as citations; just because the use of a word is relatively new (or just because it associated with a certain businessman) doesn't mean it cannot have an article. The WORD is not pro Trump (how can you even arrive at that conclusion?) Laurdecl ^talk 05:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of who created the term, the article is sourced well enough. People's bias should not be a valid reason for an AFD. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Sources are poor enough to disqualify this article. Re-create it if it becomes notable. DoggySoup (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been established that at least one of these sources perfectly meets the requirements. More have been added since the nomination. 68.232.244.162 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Scott Adams. Neologism without sustained coverage. SST flyer 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on whether the term has been used widely enough, as documented in reliable sources, to pass the WP:NEO barrier. Opinions based on politics or like/dislike of persons related to the term are not useful and will be ignored. Sandstein 11:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The phrase was recently created and appears to be classic neologism. While the phrase may be helpful, it is too soon to know if it will become an accepted and sustained part of lexicon. Also, this article could be viewed as a usage guide. Of perhaps greater concern, non-authoritative blog references exist, suggesting potential bombardment or link spam.--Rpclod (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources aren't all good, but the one by Inc makes it notable enough to stay. Merging this into Scott Adams wouldn't make sense, because it's moved beyond him by now (plus he didn't really coin it). 69.24.168.193 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:TOOSOON, via Rpclod, et al. The sources stink, to be politically incorrect. FWIW, I am a fan of Dilbert, and I actually think this term is useful, but it hasn't gained widespread use. In fact, most managers think one's strengths are all that matter (see StrengthsQuest), while the HR department thinks that it takes only one weak link to bring the whole organization down (see Taylorism) -- therefore we're not going to hire you. An encyclopedia is not prescriptive; we are descriptive. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Transwiki - WP:N established in the sources, WP:V established (and WP:NEO hurdle cleared) per Inc article, which is a reliable source. However, this probably belongs at Wiktionary, since there's no way this article will ever amount to anything but a definition. Simply merging with Scott Adams wouldn't be appropriate since the term has taken on usage outside his coining of the phrase. Karunamon ^✉ 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Wiktionary entry for this term has been tagged for "requests for verification" (their version of an AfD?). Laurdecl ^talk 23:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue of Hindu Girls (1769)[edit]

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

Not a major historical event by itself-can be better mentioned in other articles DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indian Campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani doesn't even mention an "eight (sic) invasion", much less the ninth, of which this is a very minor part. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be a major historical event Spiderone 09:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indian Campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani of which it appears to have been part, though this is currently a link farm with a lot of redlinks. It would be better if that were turned into a proper article, rather than us getting a series of unconnected paragraphs. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hours a Day (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. The RM on the talk page has a consensus to recommend sending the article to AfD. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article provides no references that indicate that the subject meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, and more crucially, no claim to notability. A look at the Canadian Billboard website confirms that the song didn't chart even in the band's home country.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BTS (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J-Hope[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability,there's certainly no better independent notability yet.(Toomass (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BTS (band) - fails WP:NMUSIC, notability is not inherited from involvement in BTS -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 06:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individual notability exists. Meets requirement WP:NMUSIC "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." WP:Charts: Under "Suitable charts" it says:

"A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:

It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine..." 47.187.107.26 (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No authoritative references show that notability criteria are met. Despite the inclusion of "Billboard" as an source adjective, Twitter Top Tracks is deemed to be user-generated content and is on the list of deprecated charts.--Rpclod (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Satine[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet the notability guidelines, which require in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. While the article currently contains a lot of references, they're not actually reliable: most of them link directly to the subject's Youtube page, some to other videos that violate copyright, and the others to pages related to her that mention her in passing.

The article's author, Romeo-00k, also uploaded a portrait of the subject, piping in their username into "Miss Satine" so I suspect they are affiliated with the subject of the article. The sourcing is poor for a biography of a living person and the tone is close to being an advertisement. It's also worth noting that her page on the Italian Wikipedia was deleted for being "unencylopedic or promotional". Opencooper (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete No evidence of notability , the article lack independent Reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JavE[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The creator of this program kept a collection of reviews here. Most are offline; some wouldn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources independent of the subject; the only one I could look up is this German article from computing magazine c't. That is a good source, but it shares with all other references that it's old. Newer sources are extremely scarce, and I do not think the flurry of 2002 publications documented on the program's website (good luck to anybody trying to assess the quality of the offline ones!) suffices to establish notability in the absence of any significant coverage in the fourteen years since. Huon (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per our policies and guidelines, notability is not temporary, and there is no requirement that reliable sources be available online. The existence of coverage in indisputably reliable sources such as ORF, c't, Mac Power, and MacPeople establishes the subject's notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see what makes ORF, c't, Mac Power, and MacPeople better than trade journals. No indication that any of those reviews was substantial, they could have been short paragraphs long. Well, yes, [9] has several paragraphs but they are all short, and it just doesn't seem like substantial or quality overage. The fact that the coverage is old doesn't matter, but the fact that it seems low quality does. Delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone who wants to keep this article is welcome to follow Czar's suggestion and present any non-trivial sources to me, but as of now no one has tried. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Padua[edit]

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

Anyway a hacker's friends can create many unreliable website sources. A simple google search has no good reslut for this hacker, and google news search has nothing, not even a passing mention. The one mention is not him.

Searching his alternate name as mentioned in the article. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per the sources on the article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links that work are to social media and blog-type sites. Most of the supposed major projects are redlinks, and the one WP:RS link returns a 404 error. Not finding anything about this Daniel Padua through searches (high false positive rate). Adds up to non-notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not too hard to track down the Wired article (search for its name), but the topic is a passing mention in it czar 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Review sources from his pt wiki article? pt:Daniel Pádua czar 02:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cossy Orjiakor[edit]

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

Non-notable celebrity lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia definition of notability does not fit well in your statement as regards this article. This is probably because you're unfamiliar with the Nigerian film industry or didn't do a thorough research on her before voting. The article does not only pass WP:GNG by virtue of the independent significant coverage in reliable sources, it also passes WP:ENT, WP:ACTORBIO and WP:ANYBIO. I will explain how it passes each one of these criteria, it roughly passes WP:ANYBIO by winning an award; passes WP:ENT, by starring in multiple notable films, even though she has starred in more than 10 films and it's difficult getting reliable references on many Nigerian films, her films has been able to make headlines on certain occasions. Her role in Itohan (a film directed by Chico Ejiro and stars many other popular Nollywood actors) was further popularized because of a scene she had with a dog. The film is well documented on the internet, you can view it. She also starred in a biographical film, Anini alongside Bimbo Akintola, This film was based on the life on Lawrence Anini. Lastly, another film Ara Saraphina (which also features many notable Nollywood actors with articles on Wikipedia), and so on. WP:ANYBIO also talks about cult following, which is very evident in her career. She is seen as a pioneer of nudity in Nigerian entertainment scene (alongside Maheeda and Afrocandy). I'm sorry if I sounded rude with my opening remarks it wasn't intentional. Darreg (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough references for a stand alone article. Mahveotm (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the keep vote. Cossy is so popular that I'm convinced that It's only non-West Africans that will vote delete. Yes, wikipedia's standard for judging notability is different from populality, but there is a way someone will be so popular that being notable is inevitable. If Cossy coughs, independent reliable sources will document it. Darreg (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references in the article clearly establishes that she passes WP:GNG. She has obviously been well discussed in reliable sources.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep controversial subject who passes WP:BASIC —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of the article is well known by most Nigerians for her controversial personality. It just happens that her article is being created later than usual. Per previous AfD contributors: There's not much I can say here because her notability is obvious. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is not obvious. The article is lacking non-trivial support for the individual. reddogsix (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ reddogsix ; What do you imply by the phrase "non-trivial support"? If you mean "significant", then it doesnt apply here. Inasmuch as I am not a fan of the subject, I just deem it necessary to do the right thing especially regarding articles written on Wikipedia for the purpose of providing information to readers from all walks of life. The subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and most of these sources range from established national newspapers to magazines. What else is required to confirm her notability? Eruditescholar (talk)

Keep this article passes WP:BASIC ... the notability on this article is clear Samat lib (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please continue discussing these concerns on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers[edit]

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

Reasons I stated on the Article's talk page. Basically, we should make a list of popular YT channels, arranged by subscribers, and include who runs them, what the do, and skips cites completely. I would like to know where the conversation is going to take place, here, on this article's talk page, or on the WP:AFD. L3X1 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination. More text is available on the article talk. @L3X1: discussion should be here, please. ansh 666 01:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: In my honest opinion, I see it that this article should be kept, though it needs work. I saw your comment, and I believe you're putting too much thought into the matter. This is an informal list in need of absolutely complete reworking from my perspective. And I disagree, if we base off of sub count, then basically anyone gets an article if they "have a lot of subscribers". At this point, there are 1,000 youtubers with 1,000,000 subscribers, should every single one get an article? CGPGrey, a youtuber with less subscribers is an article and likely on the list because of his 3rd party notability. Sorry for the tangent. It's weak because this list is basically useless and has too many people, List of Popular YouTubers should be there instead.JerrySa1 (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Popular" would make the list arbitrary and POV. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming ("Note that the word "famous" is considered an unnecessary "peacock" embellishment and should not be used.") postdlf (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For: How bad can it to be to make an article"List of YouTube Channels by subs >200K" and "List of YT Channels by Subs 100-200K"? Not every single channel has to get an article, its being in a Wiki listing instead. Or, based on soemthing I read of Quora, it could be Channels with More than 513k subs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For: Also, on my user page, I made a small chart demonstrating what it could be. Perhaps these two ideas could exist at the same time, without any deletion? The policy should still be revised, though IMO. L3X1 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure about the proposal, but I don't think WP:AfD is the place for such a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: first of all @L3X1: the deletion discussion takes place here so please move any content related to it (your talk page entry) to here. Then for what I've read on the talk page you're not actually asking it to be deleted but changed instead. So I'm not sure why you created a deletion discussion for it.
I'd agree that the table needs a new column for number of subscribers and that many entries are missing. This is why people like you need to come in and help with such articles by simply adding such missing info or discussing the addition of said on the talk page. For the number of subscribers-column: that's problematic as the numbers change all the time - however I don't see a problem with it if somebody or some bot maintains it (e.g. updating it every 6 months or so). Then for the criteria of notability: that's currently existing WP:RS about the youtuber - if you think it should be changed you need to discuss that on the talk page and potentially some other policy-related page (I don't know where - you might ask about this in your talk page entry). There are good reasons for the current Wikipedia policies, however they're not always the best possible or appropriate for some exceptions etc so don't feel shun off by them and make your case for changes with proper arguments and you may effect a needed change.

--Fixuture (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

response: Here is what I wrote on the List of YouTubers talk page: "This article should be deleted, do to the nature of its listing policy. The policies (from nearly a DECADE ago, before YT became big enough for many big corporations to realise it power in advertising, communication, and creating original content) are flawed. Not counting subs? Really? So, Smarter Every Day has >4Million subscribers, more than 31 states of the Union, yet he isn't on the list. HAVING SUBS IN NOTABLE. That's why YT give out multi-colored play buttons as awards. PDK productions (makers of Nerf Wars) isn't on the list, yet he has 1 Million + subs. McJuggerNuggets has >400K subs, is capable of bringing in more than a million views on select videos in a few days, yet was added yesterday. Violette 1st has >100K subs, is capable of grabbing up to 200K views on some videos, and is unlisted. The criteria is confusing and having to have 3rd party references serves what purpose? We can all go to YT and see how many subs are displayed, unless the creator has turned off public display. It's time the criteria was revisited and revised. Also, why are they alphabetized by FIRST NAME???? Should be by last name, not first. tldr; Having subs should get you on the list. This list needs to be greatly expanded, or the project should be deemed beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and deleted." L3X1 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
response: I would submit there is a difference between a List of YT Channels by Sub, and a list of Notable YTers. Note how many one hit wonders that received millions of views on a video, because they are one-hit, they don’t receive a sizable subscriber boost. Also note, due to the lousy existing policies, any YouTuber who gains enough external cites can be added to the List. Case in point: Allie Knight. 77k subs, will probably hit 100k sometime this year. I was able to prove and defend notability by showing how she ended up in 4 news accounts, was an industry specialist, and had enough subs to not be too big of a nobody. But still, she is a nobody, I bet none of you have heard of her. Because of the above reasons, I do not think combining and expanding the articles is a good idea. The chart on my user page? I made it in 30 minutes with simple YouTube searches. Now suppose I had to go dig up cites which meet WP policy for each and every channel? I’d still being do so to this minute! I mean, C-SPAN, CNN, Ford, they don’t need cites! Everyone (in America at least) knows who they are, what the do. Emma Blackery, she has millions of subs and a is a well known YTer. Having to dig around for a credible website that mentions her name is a waste of time and effort. As for effecting changes on the existing policies that define Notable YouTubers, the only change I think will work is removing every policy for notability except 2: Subscription count, and cites for 1HWs. That is: revolution. That is why I WP:AFD this. Perhaps rather than revolution, we can agree on making a list of YT Channels by sub, and letting the 2 pages coexist. Perhaps in 6 months or so we can come back and determine which one is more popular, more helpful, and better organized, and then WP:AFD the loser. L3X1 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC) has spoken[reply]

Delete Too many 'notable' Youtubers exist to give so many of them a spot on the list. Maybe they should be listed in subscriber rank order with only the top 20 or so shown? Oliverrushton (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the other existing YouTube articles and my User chart show, the top 20 is unhelpful, as that is mostly YouTube collective channels, and Top Musicians Vevo. We have to do at the top 200, which will get down to about ~500mil subs channels. L3X1 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you want this article deleted is clear due to you having nominated it. You are not supposed to vote, since this is akin to you voting more than once. So you should remove the bolded "Delete" and "Delete or Truce if both pages are created, not so keen on a merger" part of your above posts. You can leave the posts, but remove the bolded portions that make it appear as though there are more delete votes than there actually are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. L3X1 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come I shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sorry if it was just a mistake removing my 'delete' in bold Oliverrushton (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a mistake.L3X1 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:YouTubers per WP:CLN. If the inclusion criteria needs to be changed, that's a matter for normal editing and discussion. Not liking the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. If the list is too long, then it can be split into sublists, just as the category has subcategories. Again, a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve; see policy at WP:ATD. What is not in question is that there are enough notable people who verifiably fit the list's concept to merit a standalone list. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If the issue is length, the list should simply be split. This could be done alphabetically. If the issue is that the list doesn't add anything to the Youtubers category, then that would be a good complaint. I disagree, though, and believe that there is a unique value to this list. List of most subscribed users on YouTube already exists, and has an entirely different purpose and approach from the list of Youtubers. One recommendation I do want to make is to add a section on what being a "Youtuber" is about, and the kind of work ethic and income the profession deals with. After all, "Youtuber" redirects here. That's not really related to the AfD, though. ~Mable (chat) 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... It should be renamed something like "List of notable YouTubers" though, perhaps set up a 7 million subscriber minimum etc... Sandiego91 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Order (2017 film)[edit]

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

Too soon. The film, for all I can tell, isn't even in pre-production yet, and a while ago they said they'd need $250,000 of which they currently have about half. "Acclaimed by critics" is flat-out wrong. Huon (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In pre-production, per IMDb and sources supplied by nominator, hence it fails WP:NFF. Daß Wölf 04:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same rational as Daß Wölf. Gab4gab (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MegaDriver[edit]

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

Non-notable video-game cover band. Search turned up mostly de rigueur music streaming pages and unrelated computing sites among the sporadic gaming blog interview. Article has been around for almost a decade and has remained unsourced, with external links being magazine scans posted on the band's website. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to have some coverage: [10] from Destructoid and [11] from GamesRadar. But it's tough to find something other than "hey, check out this band that does VG covers". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the extant web coverage is weak—little depth from that alone. But there are several magazine publications in Portuguese from our current article, though they are hosted on the band's website and for one of us to verify. The classic issue is "AfD is not cleanup": whether the offline Portuguese articles will realistically ever make it into the page. As typical for these discussions, the page will continue unsourced and inaccessible, and we will be left with garbage English-language coverage. Can we write a short article with the Portuguese magazine sources and the weak English-language coverage? Possibly. But I would sooner look to a list of video game culture musicians to hold those sources rather than leaving this to rot on its own. czar 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree with Czar that it's possible to write an article using the offline sources, these would be difficult to verify and even then it would be a pretty thin article. I like the suggestion of VG culture musicians too, if enough sources could be found. But for these guys, I don't think we have enough. — sparklism ^hey! 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPlatz (Oranienplatz) Movement[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that even in the German Wikipedia, OPlatz is simply mentioned in de:Flüchtlingsproteste in Deutschland ab 2012. If you're checking on Google, care must be taken to distinguish from the city square from which the organization draws its name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 17:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My searches quickly turned up "movement" sources, like Occupy [12], but also major news outlets symathetic to this "movement"'s goals, like The Guardian [13] and Al Jazeera [14]. It does seem to have been a significant thing, during an Occupy-like protest encampment in this significant Berlin public space between 2012 and 2014. I suggest that we tag it for improvement, and hope a reliable editor undertakes to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if clear criteria are proposed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of Italy[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT. This is because it satisfies definitions #3,#4, #6, and #12. -KAP03 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure listcruft Spiderone 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, goes against several points of WP:LISTCRUFT. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "Listcruft" about it. It doesn't "satisfy definitions #3,#4, #6, and #12." Italian historical period television films and TV programs are neither indiscriminate, unverifiable, unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and the works listed are relevant to the topic. The list author goes into some detail to explain what eras are depicted. It needs improvement not deletion. It's a valid list to accompany Category:Italian historical films (of the television films variety) -- though unfortunately we don't seem to have Category:Italian historical works to group film, TV as well as the preexisting Italian historical novel category. But it's a step in the right narration. It just needs a rename. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: However, the article is not notable per WP:LISTN because it does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. KAP03 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. That's "one accepted reason." Generally, if you gotta a category you can have a list per WP:AOAL, or how I read it, anyway. We have a vast category scheme for historical fooian works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, although @Shawn in Montreal:, what do you recommend it to be called? Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the contents Category:Lists of historical period drama films as a model, maybe List of Italian historical films and television programs? I do see other lists use "set in," but that's not something I would suggest. We never use "movies," we don't title case common nouns, etc. Anything's better than the current title, pretty much. You'll see there's also List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of England in that category, created by an apparently unrelated editor, that needs a rename too, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is way too broad and the criterion "related" is far too vague. Two Women is included because it is "based on actual events". That's a real red flag when referring to movies in general. I haven't seen it, but the only thing historical about Rome, Open City appears to be the setting. And since Italy didn't exist as a country until 1861, the earlier entries don't make a lot of sense. Also, delete List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of England. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I will make a separate nomination for List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of England. KAP03 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not listcruft. The solution is improvement, not deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unclear criteria for inclusion and possible OR. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that the "topic is way too broad" and the "criteria" is not clear; further noted that there is no WP:RS citing; the films can be included and linked as part of the "See also" for the articles in which they are related topics. Kierzek (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some delete !votes focus on criteria for inclusion/broadness/maintainability. I agree that is an issue, but it applies to lots of lists, probably including everything in Category:Lists of historical period drama films and List of historical novels#Italy. I think we should really be looking at WP:LISTN, which basically says that lists are notable if they pass GNG. Italian historical film is certainly notable, and frequently lists of historical films are presented in popular journalism and in scholarship. For one example, Sorlin, Pierre. Historical films as tools for historians (Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies 18, no. 1 (1988): 2-15) discusses a number of films, not exactly as a list, but almost so, and focuses on Italian examples. Italian historical films are frequently studied as a collection, and work in this area would also lend itself well to a list. For instance, a list of crime films and television shows set in historic Italy could be based in part on Pezzotti, Barbara. Investigating Italy's Past through Historical Crime Fiction, Films, and TV Series: Murder in the Age of Chaos (Springer, 2016), to take a recent book-length example. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the issue about the criteria. What does "related" mean? How far in the past do you have to go to be "historical"? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what related to means, which is why I asked what other titles should be used. As for criteria, what criteria do you mean? Are you talking about the WP:LISTCRUFT criteria? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another, related objection. The Category:Lists of historical period drama films Shawn in Montreal proposed as a model looks a bit dubious too. For one thing, it includes lists of films about the Bible and King Arthur. More seriously, it encompasses a large majority of film lists. Consider what could be excluded: science fiction, some fantasies and a few other genres. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Nominator withdrew this AfD. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers-In-Parks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost no secondary sources to support notability. This source has a paragraph. Should be merged into National Park Service. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just took a few seconds to find a whole article [[15]] and another [[16]] and this [[17]] and this [[18]]. More sources can be found in books too: [[19]] and [[20]]. MB 02:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teenebelle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BAND. Discogs have no entry for them, and Spotify reports they have never been played. Zero notability. scope_creep (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another recreated article after being speedied. scope_creep (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no evidence of notability in the article and very little in the way of third-party information when running an internet search on the name. Mike1901 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notabilty under WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator. This AfD discussion should have been created as a 2nd nomination. It overwrote the previous debate that closed in February 2015 [21] instead. ~~The result of the previous discussion was delete.~~ The discussion was closed after the article was speedily deleted A7. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have split this into its own discussion. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wendy Moten discography. A redirect is actually useful even if no one will search for the whole string due to the autocomplete feature of the search bar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tis the Season (Wendy Moten album)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Widefox; talk 17:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. A redirect from this title isn't going to be useful. --Michig (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wendy Moten discography. With no sources, there's nothing to merge.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yama Rauf[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. The Wildsound Feedback film festival doesn't appear notable, and the other award was at a local festival in his hometown. Largoplazo (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four sources supplied are the same interview on two different websites, one of them on the Wildsound website and the other on the interviewer's website. Largoplazo (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Not notable under GNG or NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a clear case of WP:TOOSOON with the film being "screened all over the world". WP:PROMO applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here is quite clearly keep, even when removing SPA input into the matter. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATMIA[edit]

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

Locally-based association of which the listed sources are still only PR, announcements, listings and trivial mentions, none of them genuinely amount to substance needed by our notaiblity policies and there's concerns as it is of this only existing as a business listing of which we are not. When an article closely focuses with "ATMIa and members are", "ATMIA and members can", "ATMIA's chief aim is to provide a forum for common issues among members including technical matters such as coordinating the global adoption of operating systems", "ATMIA has advocated", etc, that's PR speak, regardless of whatever or whoever, and that's also explicitly what our policies are against. We never accept articles simply by the sheer fact they are "informative and sourced" because our policies are far important compared to that. As such, this shouldn't have been accepted at all. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe TwistedSister has taken it against this entry. He/she has never been supportive and has not allowed to any reasoning nor discussion. The entry moved forward thanks to the help and support of other editors. So that I know of, at least three editors have seen this entry. So not a thing that it was approved without having it fully vetted.

But to make the case deletion

1) About notoriety,

An initial issue with this article was that it relied too much on ATMmarketplace, Business Wire and Finextra. Many of these were indeed PR notes, in no small measure thanks to my naivete as this is the first full article contribution. As mentioned above, thanks to the assistance of other wiki editors, these sources were diversified. These include a statement in the New York Times, on "the leading trade group" (ref 6), discussion within the future of Windows XP and 10 (ref 8), as well as evidence from parliamentary depositions by ATMIA members in the USA, Canada, Australia and Sweden (refs 21 to 26) among others.

In brief, I did took care and went at lengths to show independent notoriety while avoiding PR notes. So I do believe TwistedSister's view is based on an old version of the article rather than on the current and approved version.

2) ATM Industry Association has been referenced in the following wiki articles

cash machine / Automated Teller Machine (twice)

Windows XP (which corroborates footnote 8 in the current ATMIA article page)

KAL Software

MegaLink

Oberthur Cash Protection

So it is not orphan but, in my view, validated by other wiki articles.

CIM2014 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the contested AFD page creator: It obviously meets NCORP. I'm the one who accepted this AFC submission. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know it's unfashionable to make arguments based on common sense around here, but I consider that the major national level trade group for each major industry should have an article. It's important that people know what they are, if only so they can properly judge sources emanating from them. Allsuch organizations have a promotional purpose, but we can state this in a NPOV fashion. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having watched this page go through AFC and helping the creator make changes, there have been many improvements. Additionally, I have a really hard time believing all 38 references are crap (especially since I vetted a few of them on IRC). There's good coverage, it's not completely promotional, and I'm glad the creator stuck by their work to get it acceptable for the mainspace. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this is a significant and important trade association with members from all over the world. As a user I navigated to this entry while checking sources in the ATM page. I found the article informative and I am very surprised it was marked for deletion. E. Efthymiou (Cyprus) 80.244.21.30 (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP aside, please state if you have COI and how this is a specific policy-based comment. SwisterTwister talk 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where else in wikipedia do you find information about ATM industry and the research about it? this entry offer useful links and provides basic knowledge beyond simply PR. It offers an start point for further enquiry as it is the case for most wikipedia articles which provide an initial quick answer for most topics. M.Rubio (Spain) 81.37.247.142 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP aside, please state if you have COI and how this is a specific policy-based comment. SwisterTwister talk 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found extremely useful the information provided in this entry: by removing it there will be not other place to get accurate informtion on the ATM industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65gmarquez (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There may appear to be consensus, but nearly half of the keep !votes come from singe-purpose IPs/accounts. This seems fishy and we need more eyes on this. Lepricavark (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The full name is "ATM Industry Association", and it was originally named "ATM Owners Association". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I asked for advice from the Cafe this morning. Following these comments on how to improve the entry, I removed / fixed broken links/redirections. Also reduced the redirections in "see also" section.

I do not think that an association with several thousand members (indvidual and corporate) across 66 countries could be considered as 'Locally-based".Moreover, during edits one of the things removed was its corporate governance, where it was noted that staff is distributed throughout the world (just a handful are actually based in the USA - let alone South Dakota). Thanks, Bernardo

CIM2014 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this organization is not a local one and the substantial sourcing provides required evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul III of Valois[edit]

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

Article about a 11th century noble that appears to fail WP:GNG. There is currently not a consensus that noble status confers notability, and the sources that I could find are about genealogy and heirs or land he acquired by marriage. While I'm aware of recentism and try to avoid it, especially considering how difficult sources from this time period are to find, I believe that a 18th or 19th or 20th century noble with similar sources would likely fail the general notability guideline, and as such we shouldn't make an exception for an 11th century noble. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious if this article fails to meet notability, then should Renaud II, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis which contains nothing but genealogical information(which was originally sourced by an unreliable website), also be deleted? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, we also have WP:NOTGENEALOGY which Renaud II arguably falls under Raoul III very well could as well. I think one of my larger concerns with medieval nobles is that a lot of what we have are mainly genealogy and property records, which I don't think rises to the level of meriting inclusion on its own. Again, understand the recentism concerns, but I'm also not convinced that being 1000 years old and being mentioned in a family tree merits inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I generally agree about the genealogy issue, I think the more important point is that this article suffers from poor research and writing. A little bit of searching turned up some interesting facts including that this fellow was excommunicated because he repudiated his wife and married Anne of Kiev, widow of Henry I of France (and daughter of Yaroslav the Wise), and headed a resistance effort to the King of France. He and his son also warranted an mention in the Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 3. I think that an alternative to deletion would be to label it a stub and give interested readers a chance to fix it. Alternately, replace it with a translation of the associated French Wikipedia article, which is much better. Wolverine74 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Cambridge source and the remarriage source, and both looked to be passing mentions to me more about the son and his second wife than about him. My concerns here are not just about the genealogy but also WP:GNG. This is an individual who we do have multiple passing mentions to in reliable sources. Do these mentions amount to what is needed to satisfy WP:BIO or GNG? I don't think so. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess you've made your mind up on this, so let's move on. First, we need to delete Herbert IV, Count of Vermandois, Raoul's son-in-law, since that article clearly doesn't meet the standards. And the article on Raoul's son Simon should also be deleted since he didn't do anything but inherit property and become a monk. As I'm looking at the Counts and Dukes of Valois, Drogo can also be deleted as can Adelaide. So the first 14 counts of Valois can be discounted, saving a lot of space. A great way to look at history. Wolverine74 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Anne of Kiev per discussion above; this seems to be the most notable aspect of the subject's life. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think counts in medieval Europe are certainly notable enough individuals to have articles on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTGENEALOGY says, "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.", which doesn't really apply here as parents and children are generally considered a useful part of a biography and genealogy beyond that is not included. In general, though, counts and earls who controlled a significant amount of land (basically, all counts and earls during feudalism, I think), so a case could be made for notability based on WP:NPOL. But more seriously, counts and earls and people of higher royal and noble ranks are almost always going to satisfy GNG. In this case, note that he was also "Raoul IV of Vexin" and in English he is also called "Ralph". Searching google books for '(ralph OR raoul) (vexin OR valois OR crepy) 1074' (1074 was the year of his death) as here gives a number of additional reliable in-depth sources. I think a creative search for Herbert of Vermandois and most counts and earls (and higher) would find them to be GNG as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He is mentioned in The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 3, p. 111. One of the difficulties in researching an 11th-century figure is the variety of names he may go by. This Raoul may also be called Ralph, Radulf and Rodulf. Likewise, he was count of not only Valois, but also the Véxin, Crépy, Bar-sur-Aube, Vitry and other places. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How extensively is the subject mentioned in The Cambridge Medieval History? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:I believe this is the page that Srnec is referring to "Raoul+III+of+Valois"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLuLDynavRAhVCOyYKHcpGDcwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Raoul%20III%20of%20Valois%22&f=false. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned once in the CMH. The CMH is a general history covering all of Europe and 1000 years. You would not expect most "genealogical placeholders" to get mentioned at all. I am going to expand the article later today. I have several sources to add. The most extensive are David Bates, "Lord Sudeley's ancestors: the family of the counts of Amiens, Valois and the Vexin in France and England during the 11th century", in The Sudeleys – Lords of Toddington (Manorial Record Soc. of Great Britain, 1987), pp. 34–48, and P. Feuchère, "Une tentative manquée de concentration territoriale entre Somme et Seine: la principauté d'Amiens-Valois au XI^e siècle", in Le Moyen Âge, 40 (1954), pp. 1–37. Also, note that the sources are not in agreement on the numbering of the counts of Valois. The count in question, who died in 1074, is more often called Ralph IV. Srnec (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, If the sources can be added to expand, I'm fine withdrawing the AfD after it is done. The sources I saw up until this point did not convince me it met GNG (including Cambridge), but it looks like you have multiple pages of information on him in several books. That meets GNG if it is correct, and I'd be happy to withdraw because of that if K.e.coffman changes his redirect !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CMH is an extremely passing mention, and does not indicate if the subject has done anything significant to warrant a stand-alone article. Notability is not inherited from a notable spouse (Anne of Kiev) or a better known offspring (Simon de Crépy, who is covered in a lot more detail in CMH). I'd be happy to re-evaluate my ivote if the article improves beyond "Raoul immediately begins pillaging Joigny's county" which seems like a fairly routine activity for a count of that time period. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same, my offer to withdraw was based on seeing what could be added to the article from the RS. Sorry if not clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. And I haven't even touched the Feuchère source yet. My point about CMH was that a passing mention in such a work is probably the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Part of the problem is a lack of a standard way of referring to somebody like Ralph. You could also call him Radulf or Rodulf. Or Raoul, as we currently do, although I think we should move the page to Ralph IV of Valois. The numbering varies between III and IV and he may be called a count of Valois, Crépy, Amiens or Montdidier, since he was all of those (and more). Srnec (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvements by Srnec; nice job! K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per Srnec's masterful work! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Iowa. The coverage appears to not be enough, but a redirect doesn't hurt. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Pray[edit]

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

Pray's only present claim to notability is being Miss Iowa. This is not a title that confers default notability, and there is not enough coverage to pass the GNG. the coverage is all concentrated in eastern Iowa. Other coverage of her is largely from publications within her college community. Her role as a musician has not yet reached the level to make her notable for that. She may go on at some point in the future to become notable as a singer, but she has not done so yet. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that right now the subject does not meet notability guidelines, perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON regarding her musical career.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added nothing to this article. There are plenty of reinforcing sources available. The facts are already before him but he chose to ignore; Pray won Miss Iowa on June 11, 2011. She had a title reign as that title holder. She then competed for and was a top ten finisher in Miss America 2012 culminating on January 14, 2012. Trackinfo (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A check of WP:BEFORE D1 shows that the community has received less than the information from a minimum search expected in a deletion nomination. For example, the first link in Google News is from New Haven, Connecticut; and in the sixth snippet, the NYTimes states, "The songs, expressively conveyed by the soprano Jessica Pray..." If notability was an issue here, in the 14 minutes the nominator spent in preparing the deletion nomination, a policy-compliant merge to Miss Iowa could have created a mini-bio there. The fact is that given a choice, members of Wikiproject Beauty Pageants have preferred to create standalone articles rather than group mini-bios on state-level pageants. So notability is a minor point, that picks between a standalone article and a merged mini-bio. But AfD is not cleanup, and one of the bottom lines in a volunteer organization is "who is willing to do the work". Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A one sentance mention in an article about other people is not enough to create notability. This [22] is the New York Times article mentioned. It is 8 paragraphs long. It mentions the 5 people whose work it is actually focusing on at the start of paragraph 2. Jessica Pray is mentioned at the start of Paragraph 4. Although they are actually mentioning Pray performing some of the works of Charles Ives. This is a trivial not a substantial mention. The first link in Google News comes from New Haven Connecticut because that is where Pray now lives. It highlights Pray performing a solo with the New Haven Symphony Orchestra when they performed Handel's Messiah. I do not think this is enough to establish a musicians notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the 2 Keep votes themselves state that mere participation is notability but yet we've established at nearly all of the AfDs that sole participating is not notability and this article itself only hangs by that specific information hence not in fact notable, regardless of what someone else thinks is "Notable for participation". SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you agree that WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT are widely accepted policies that all editors should normally follow. In that context, how do you explain giving priority to WP:DEL8 over the alternatives to deletion that WP:PRESERVE our content contributions? Or is this a "secret" IAR !vote? Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Miss Iowa crown alone doesn't merit an individual wikipedia entry so it is irrelevant; this is an argument if the subject meets notability standards per WP:MUSICAN. In that regards it fails. The cited sources are of the school/hometown "local-makes-good" variety and can hardly be considered significant evidence of notability in the world of music. Independent searches not cited in this article find a few trivial mentions that convey existence. Existence does not equal notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since notability is a minor point for this topic; even with all you've said, you haven't explained why the topic should be deleted. Why are you !voting to delete? Unscintillating (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decagrex[edit]

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The company does exist, which is good as far as it goes. But there's no indication that the firm is notable under our rules. Happy to revisit if sources are presented, but my admittedly quick look came up with no hint at notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; just a company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History (Olivia Holt song)[edit]

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

This song fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. There is no significant coverage about this song in independent reliable sources, nor did this song chart. Whpq (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NMUSIC. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President fiction[edit]

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

No indication that the genre is notable (in the sense of WP:GNG). The article is vague, unreferenced and full of original research. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Hard to tell if there’s a notable topic in there, with no refs, links, or concrete examples. Searching with a variety of search terms turns up nothing. Normally would try searching in Chinese which would I suspect be far more fruitful but none is given.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches turn up nothing and as it is written now it should not be included in the encyclopedia. I'm aware AfD is not cleanup, but when we can't ascertain if it is a notable term, it should be deleted. Would be open to keeping if there are Chinese-language sources that show it is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources provided by the article; there are also no sources that can be found regarding the topic. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Romance novel as effectively a generic romance novel trope. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to merge though. I mean Romance novel is a properly written, properly sourced article. I doubt adding any of this badly written and unsourced content would improve it or be welcomed. Taiwanese literature might be more appropriate target, except for the same issues with this content. I looked at Taiwanese literature to see if mentioned "President fiction" when trying to find references to it, but there’s nothing on that or any Taiwan-specific romance genre.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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