< 3 January	5 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 no consensus. The community prefers to assess the notability of each character individually. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Edmondson[edit]

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

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

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

(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)

None of these support characters appears notable or show any evidence of any backed by sources. Fails WP:GNG, relies too heavily on plot summaries backed by other Wikipedia page as sources and not on demonstrating character's notability. Cylon B (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a repeat nomination right on the heels of the last one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_characters), and I continue to oppose it for Racetrack and Kat. (I am neutral regarding the others.) I realize that she doesn't have a lot of dialogue, but Racetrack is such a pivotal character—she is a witness to or participant in every major event of the show—that it's really hard for me to see her not having her own article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the view of a fan. "Racetrack is such a pivotal character—she is a witness to or participant in every major event of the show". source? Are casual and lesser fans going to care about that fact? The fact you don't have any sources to back this up and I was told I can renominated this again but in bits why I did it again. Cylon B (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep All as once again the nominator has managed to mass-nominate clearly notable fictional elements (each 'find sources' book link leads to at least two independent, non-trivial RS's. Each of them!) in what can most charitably be described as a misguided attempt to use deletion as cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer to remove 3 of these as I thought 5 was okay if that's what you want but my argument remains the same. Cylon B (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with J Milburn that mass nominations are not that helpful as they do not allow users to appropriately determine the notability of each individual article/character. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 9 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. Each article should be nominated and evaluated individually. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel T. Anders[edit]

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

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

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

(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)

None of these appears notable as characters. Fails WP:GNG, relies too heavily on plot summaries and not on demonstrating character's notability Cylon B (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge the informations from the nominated articles into List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as once again the nominator has managed to mass-nominate clearly notable fictional elements (each 'find sources' book link leads to at least two independent, non-trivial RS's. Each of them!) in what can most charitably be described as a misguided attempt to use deletion as cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Ellen Tigh as there are plenty of reliable sources to be found through a simple google search, especially when you search for information about this character through the search term "fifth cylon" and other variants. There is more than enough information to support the character having her own page, and the poor condition of the actual article should not be used as grounds for merge and/or delete. I am not certain about the other ones as much, but I am not a fan of the mass-nomination strategy, especially since there are several mass-nominations open right now in AFD on BSG-related articles. I would have advised waiting for one of them to close before opening multiple new ones. Either way, I still believe the page for Ellen Tigh should be kept at the very least. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brigid Hanrahan[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. 2 of the 3 sources supplied do not mention the subject. Article author has a conflict of interest. Flat Out (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete Duffbeerforme convinced me that two is not several. ~~The 'Collections' section alone appears to meet element #4 of WP:ARTIST.~~ Could be sourced by the articles external link. Gab4gab (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It bothers me that the article cites Vasari, who had absolutely nothing to say about Hanrahan, and then goes into some WP:OR about 'affetti' but provides very few sources that give a critical assessment of the work. I could be persuaded that curation is a form of critical assessment, but there is no indication that there was a solo-show dedicated to the artist; the NGA acquired work. If it's only one drawing, that's not sufficient for me. Mduvekot (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:01, 9 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. WP:NPASR on account of notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernand Picard (engineer)[edit]

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

As background:- This is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD#X2, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language.

Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, so now I need to ask the community to enforce it via AfD.

I want to be clear that this translation is fixable for someone with dual fluency. I could fix it. But the effort involved is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! —S Marshall T/C 23:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Machine translations should be burnt with fire. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is in a terrible state, and don't appear to be any humans wanting to fix it. I'd normally say Userfy, but there isn't really anything here worth salvaging. 1292simon (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with due respect to the solid arguments above. I've stubbed the article, and argue that there's coverage which shows that the subject has created/designed multiple automobiles which have received signficant coverage, which would qualify (okay, I admit this is a little bit of a stretch) under WP:ARTIST #3. I suspect WP:BASIC coverage is available but I don't pretend I've proven it here. Still, I have addressed the issues with machine translation via stubbing and sourcing. --joe decker ^talk 05:09, 12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Musteata[edit]

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

Football player who does not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL since there's no indication that he has ever played in a fully professional league. Also fails to meet the more general requirements of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a Tier-1 international match or in a fully professional league, thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. I also note that the article was created by MV1, and Musteata's jersey number is 1; there may be some conflict of interest, but that is not a reason to delete, and there is insufficient evidence for me to add a COI warning to the user's talk page or to open a WP:COIN report. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG Spiderone 22:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a thorough search, I'm finding zero credible sources to support this person's notability. Demitrius39 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL guideline.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable sources to make a decent article. Brad v 21:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Blanch Law Firm[edit]

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

References are to blogs, subject's own site, and passing mentions or brief quotes in articles about other subjects. No evidence of sustained, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG with no independent, third-party relaible sources; also fails WP:NCORP, with no WP:CORPDEPTH to the little coverage that does exist. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A nothing-special law firm. bd2412 T 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing my standards for lawyers. Not all attorneys are, nor are all law firms, notable. I've practiced law for 24 years in NY, and I've never heard of this law firm nor its principal. He's the fourth lawyer quoted in a FOX "news" article, but that's not about him. There is no explanation, either in the sources, nor in the stub, as to why some people might consider him notable -- it is not even wrong -- and thus could be speedily deleted. Attorneys are frequently called by the media to comment on matters of legal news -- I've been quoted twice by the Business Review. So what? WE are not a webhost for lawyers; that's one reason bar associations exist. I note, by the way, that he's not been particularly involved in any bar association(s). Bearian (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. None of the references given satisfy WP:RS. Brad v 21:35, 10 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 Keep WP:SK criteria 6, page is linked from the front page (non-admin closure) --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mrs. Carter[edit]

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

A new user has tagged this article with a "proposed deletion" tag, but I feel that AFD would be a more appropriate course of action to address this user's concern about the article's notability. His or her reason for the tag was as follows: "Not notable, self-published, no record label, no Wikipedia article for 'Liv'". I am the article's creator, but I will respect any decision that this decision brings either way. I will also not be casting a vote either way. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.

Delete as not notable. --Tarzany (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 FIRS World Inline Hockey Championships – Senior Men's tournament[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 9 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 FIRS World Inline Hockey Championships[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Founders Cup playoffs[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 PIHA Pro season[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable sportscruft. There was a reference but the link is now dead. It was a primary source anyway so it doesn't help to show notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:24, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 IIHF Men's InLine Hockey World Championship rosters[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable list of names. It may be notable that some established ice hockey players participated, but that could be mentioned elsewhere.18abruce (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Conference Championship (PIHA)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major trophy for a professional sports league is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I disagree; there's nothing inherently notable about trophies. And really, DJ, that line of reasoning opens up articles on Rookie of the Year trophies from the Atlantic Coast Hockey League and the Western Professional Hockey League, which I hope you'd agree is absurd. There's no evidence that this trophy meets the GNG ... heck, I haven't seen any evidence that the league does. Ravenswing 04:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: funny you should mention that... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Roller Hockey... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very hard to find any evidence for notability, even from the PIHA itself which does not currently list it as a league award or maintain any listing of its importance.18abruce (talk) 00:28, 12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 PIHA season[edit]

Most are completely unsourced, a couple have a single, primary source. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Also see WP:RAWDATA. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 PIHA season[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 National Collegiate Roller Hockey Championships – Division I[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are sources but they are all primary and the Google links do not look good on a first glance. If anybody can find some RS coverage then it could stand a chance but I think it is a very slim one. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 MLRH Super League season[edit]

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable sportscruft. The one source is primary and the link doesn't work anymore. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 ITF Women's Junior Circuit (January–March)[edit]

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

Juniors are non-notable tournaments. Fails WP:Tennis and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed... This is non-notable stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 ITF Women's Junior Circuit[edit]

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

Juniors are non-notable tournaments. Fails WP:Tennis and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed... This is non-notable stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 PIHA season[edit]

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

Completely unsource. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete No references. No notability, unremarkable. --Tarzany (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Slabs[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements of WP:BAND - no hits, no major concerts, no radio play, no awards, no notable musicians. Cannot find any sources other than social media. Rogermx (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Tarzany (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of WP:Notability. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:RS. See Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band. Completely unsourced. Brad v 00:43, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ansearch[edit]

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

Was looking for sources to remove the advert tag but...there's just nothing about this company. There's an interview here, but it's actually about an investor and this just happens to be one of the things they discuss. This is minor non-news coverage but it appears to be a blog.

This (source of uncertain reliability) puts the site at not even the top 50k websites in the US (not encouraging), with an estimated worth of <$10k.

Seems like a small time company that was promising once, and was WP:TOOSOON when the article was created...but nine years later it's still not soon enough. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just promotions! Light2021 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Even the external links to purported co-branded sites aren't good any more (if they ever were). This tree appears to have fallen in the forest with no one to hear it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:25, 11 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 given the consensus we have for schools (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peshawar Public School and College[edit]

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

No sources. Completely improperly formatted. Fails WP:GNG Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable secondary schools are usually considered notable. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. Just Chilling (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even any need here to look for local hard-copy and local language sources, because this school has coverage available online in English from the Wall Street Journal, which is more than we can say for most American high schools. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because this high school article is not a hoax. A simple search using Find sources:news gives me two results. Notability is not determined by an articles current sources and content. Gab4gab (talk) 21:23, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zigmund Adamski[edit]

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

Subject mentioned in UFO conspiracy books - but zero WP:FRIND sources. A single WP:SENSATIONal BBC story exists, but that isn't enough to overcome WP:1E. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable for anything beyond post-event UFO claims. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It'd be incorrect to classify the BBC as a fringe or involved source, but that's not enough by itself in any case. --joe decker ^talk 04:41, 12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Suvidha[edit]

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

May fail at WP:ORGCRITE. Not enough coverage in reliable and independent sources. Hitro talk 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - startup not yet notable per WP:CORP. The only coverage I can find online is passing mentions, some niche blog coverage, plus the usual puff pieces that startups routinely feed to the financial press about how experienced and awesome their CEO is. Wikishovel (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable company, WP:TOOSOON fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "minor-tech-startup" spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New company still need to prove its worth even the encyclopedic standards. Light2021 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Start-up company that currently fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 9 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary Depot[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:CORP guidelines. Only valid source I can see is this[1] and rest are press releases by Market Wired. Malunrenta (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no reliable sources and so this also fails general notability standards as well. The article's tone is more like a "puff" piece or marketing blurb than an encyclopedia article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:47, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spirits of the Jaguar[edit]

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

Was originally tagged as CSD A7 but to my knowledge was incorrect criterion. Non-notable TV programme, first aired 1996 with no reruns of note. There is valid sources on Google but not enough to satisfy GNG. Snöggletög Nightfury ^{Happy Christmas!!} 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury ^{Happy Christmas!!} 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury ^{Happy Christmas!!} 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury ^{Happy Christmas!!} 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the one who tagged it under A7 & I failed to read the A7 criteria before using it, Anyway non notable documentary, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BuickCentury Driver 09:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC) User:Gear126 blocked as sock of BuickCenturyDriver Nördic Nightfury 07:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:58, 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 redirect to Spinnin' Records. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Recordings[edit]

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

Redirect as per the other sub-labels of Spinnin' Records. Not notable on its own. Karst (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the label has become less active this year, there are many artists who began to release music through it. It may not be relevant on Wikipedia but it's a great way to see who's released what and there's links to quite a lot of notable artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox Tanawa-Bamba (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This is actually a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above users provide no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the GNG or WP:MUSIC Exemplo347 (talk) 17:50, 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Manaqib[edit]

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

The article claims (without citation) that it is one of the "most widely circulated National Newspaper" in Pakistan, but it also says that it was founded in 2016 and has a circulation of 8500 in a country of 182 million. No English-language sources that suggest notability. Unless there are Urdu sources, this should be deleted. agtx 16:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 8500 subscribers? Fails GNG too. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. Ineligible for soft deletion due to prior AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive skills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There appears to be no significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent, published sources. There are various how-to guides published, which would not seem to be reliable sources due to having a commercial interest in promoting the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "primitive skills" as used in the article appears to be a WP:Neologism related to the use of ~~prehistoric technology~~ pre-industrial technology. The term is not used in this way in most scholarly papers, which instead use the term only in passing, and either in the context of testing people with dyslexia or else machine learning in robots. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 19:05, 02:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in current unreferenced state. Have to agree - in the absence of references showing the widespread use of the term in the manner proposed here, this is a neologism. The very first stub of this article [2] defined it as a "current buzz term used by naturists and 'back-to-landers'", without backing this up. Pinging Seraharold as the last editor to add substantial material - what is your basis for these additions? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:02, 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 Speedy deleted as hoax G3. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alakazaam[edit]

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

This is a hoax, with most of the article's content created by slightly changing or copy-pasting that from the real movie Kazaam. E.g. the storywriter (Paul Michael Glaser) is the same for the real and fake movies, but the first screenplay writer's name has been changed to Christian Iddon from Christian Ford. To add another example, the description of the title character has been slightly changed from "10,000-year-old genie" to make him only 5,000 years old. Everymorning (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged for speedy deletion given that evidence. Siuenti (talk) 16:53, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) reddogsix (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dave Gray (Author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are for the most part brief mentions, quotes, or WP:PRIMARY in nature. Editor that created article has disclosed they are associated "employer, client, and[/or other] affiliation" on article talk page. Page is more of a vanity/advertisement page than an encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 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. Consensus is that he does not yet satisfy the relevant guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Fabian Ezequiel Aguero[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD at Aguero Sergio Fabian Ezequiel. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: The player will play in a top professional league (The Malaysia Super League) and sources are given through references. In Addition, his past information has also been given in the external links. It is noted that the links are in Hungarian, however as per WP:GNG, sources does not have to be in English as i quote from WP:GNG, Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.. Henceforth what else is needed then to make it valid? Reply then Sir Sputnik. (talk) --Malaysianfootball (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysianfootball (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until he actually makes his debut, notability cannot be guaranteed; see WP:CRYSTAL. Spiderone 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysianfootball: Please keep this discussion in one place. Posting this comment here, and on both our talk pages makes it difficult for others involved to follow it. To address your comments, Spiderone sums it up well, until he actually makes his Super League debut, he does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Tarzany (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Fair point. The Super league will kick off on the 21st and when that day comes and Sergio Aguero makes his debut, i'll come back to this page to see what else will you have to say. --Malaysianfootball (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY; Wikipedia:Too soon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 11 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. One of the delete votes is "weak", but there seems to be consensus that the coverage is not enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leger Holidays[edit]

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

Non notable company, Fails NCORP & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (WP:A7) per Nomination above. The page contains inaccuracies and without in-line citations, nothing can be verified - not that there are any significant reliable sources to check anyway. WP:Snow applies. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there's about 2 or 3 useable sources I didn't believe A7 really applied but ofcourse if you wanna A7 it I have no objections, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete There are plenty of name-drops and anecdotes involving the company, but most of the detailed stuff fails WP:ORGDEPTH for being generic reviews or routine business listings. I found [3], which isn't from a great source (Daily Mail) but does go into the company a bit. So, I'm leaning delete, but willing to be persuaded otherwise (since I might have missed something). Primefac (talk) 16:12, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Khanjan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:31, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Road FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All other teams in Premier Development League have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schencktopus (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they meet GNG? If not, I can nominate them as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nomination. As a side note - "all other teams in Premier Development League" do not have articles. I count 5 without articles. Some of the other teams have significant coverage in reliable sources, but another I looked at was as weakly sourced as this one. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ There are multiple newspaper articles on this team published in the News and Observer and the Herald-Sun as well as other sources. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schencktopus (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as many times as you like, but you only get one !vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the PDL, the top amateur league in the US/Canada, is sufficient. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in the PDL, the top amateur/semipro league in the US/Canada, is sufficient and there are reliable sources including local newspapers and Sports Illustrated 209.131.254.90 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief mention in the SI article does not meet the criteria for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we've always considered USPDL teams notable. Not sure why this would be any different. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read WP:GNG? There are no RSes to support the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per other keep vote rationals. Article needs improvement but deletion is not cleanup. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:03, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhawati people[edit]

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

In contrast to what the title suggests, this is about the Shekhawati region instead of the Shekhawati people and we already have a good article about the Shekhawati region so this is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a description of a region and there is no indication given of a culturally distinctive group. Quetzal1964 15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence that this is an actual ethnic group Spiderone 18:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:01, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khuda Mera Bhi Hai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:30, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shabnam Bubly[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guideline for biographies. Umair Aj (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This actress has her IMDB profile. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8311266/Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (WP:A7) - No assertion of notability. Tagged as such. Brad v 20:42, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' Skool[edit]

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

Inability to demonstrate notability to the level required by our criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two albums on Universal, one of which was a top 50 hit, meets notability criteria. Further chart placings showing up in GBooks, e.g. Joel Whitburn's The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits and 1998 Billboard Music Yearbook, Bio in Joel Whitburn's Music Stars. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but the current lone source shows that they had a charting record and releases on significant labels. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 17:36, 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 redirect to Bastu-Shaap. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomake Chhuye Dilam[edit]

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

No notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent movie, Bastu-Shaap. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:45, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Hickman[edit]

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

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

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLPs of three people notable only for serving at the county level of government. This is not a level of office for which someone gets an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just because he exists, but none of the articles is actually sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles on local politicians lacking adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the number and the reliability of the sources themselves, I suggest keeping it, but label it as a stub. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I reviewed the article. The subject seems to met a minimum criteria of WP:GNG. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. The only marginal claims of notability in the article are in the lede, which is unsourced. The references given in the article are mostly opinion pieces or only mention the subject in passing. Brad v 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Local politician with only routine local coverage. MB 22:58, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinna Mayil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. Article is about a film that wasn't released... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominated. Unreleased films are only notable if the reason that they weren't released is itself notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 18:55, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bowers[edit]

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

Does not appear to have sources that meet WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE and does not meet any requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't get it, really. A hallmark of the several hundred Dolovis-created articles that have gone through the deletion process (for which he received, in the end, a community ban from new article creation) was to conflate petty "honors" into the major honors required by NHOCKEY for presumptive notability. But here we fall short: a fellow with an ephemeral career in the mid- to low-minor leagues, he has no league honors of any sort, not even from his admittedly good 2010 season in the low minors, not even a specious claim. Nothing. There's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which the subject qualifies, and certainly won't now. Ravenswing 18:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the American Hockey League (the highest level at which he played) can get a player into Wikipedia under criterion #3 ("Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues") — it is not a league for which every player automatically gets an article just for playing in it, and this article does not show evidence that Bowers actually meets the necessary conditions to qualify. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone above - fails NHOCKEY. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:32, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shatamanam Bhavati[edit]

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

Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NF... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as WP:TOOSOON. Has been announced but not released. No prejudice against re-creating in a week's time or so after release date (assuming it is actually released then). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 10 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gopan mavelikara[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR Spiderone 20:24, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Utay[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor, primarily in small television parts. Quis separabit? 21:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources that show sustained coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:22, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajni (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film by a non-notable director. I cannot see how this meets WP:NFILM. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable film. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any sources to satisfy an element of WP:NFILM. Happy to reconsider if any are found. Gab4gab (talk) 20:26, 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 Blessthefall. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Warth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blessthefall as he has no notability outside of the band. KaisaL (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:21, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Elliott[edit]

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

This looks to me like if it's written in the style of an overglorified Linkedin page that does not hint notability other than a tiny part of her cycling as it seems. Going into that, only two reliable sources but one source is of local interest and the other mention is about the event and briefly about her. In all, fails all 4 criteria of WP:NCYCLING for women.

What she achieved in Zwift and the Brompton does not count as notability as the latter is not a UCI event. Donnie Park (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Donnie Park nailed it. The only thing I'll add is that the premier result is winning a manufacturer-sponsored fun race for folding bicycles where the riders where business attire. I'm certain that doesn't qualify under WP:NATHLETE Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - fails WP:NCYCLING, nothing else notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucca Allen[edit]

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

Non-notable. Yes, there is a lot of press coverage but all of it comes from being Rachel Allen's son. It's WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps we can write a few sentences about him in Rachel's article and create a redirect. Susana Hodge (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable enough now - maybe later. ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While there is some limited coverage, that coverage wouldn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG criteria. Beyond GNG, WP:NMOTORSPORT expects motorsports subjects to participate in a fully professional series (Formula 4 is for 'junior drivers', and wouldn't to my understanding meet that criteria). As noted, seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. (On the "merge and redirect to Rachel Allen", while that might seem a compromise, I'm not sure we should do so. The guidelines which establish that notability is not inherited don't really support the idea. Merge the relevant/cited content? Certainly/absolutely! Redirect to that merged content? Probably not). WP:MINORS also applies. Guliolopez (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Formula 4 is a professional series for young drivers aiming for Formula One, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.97.30 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel fuel tanks in trucks[edit]

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

User:Andy Dingley put it better than I probably could: The content is either self-evident (quality of welding is obviously necessary) or unsourced and dubious. Most what's in here is so narrowly specific that it implies (unsourced) that there is only one single way to make a fuel tank, which is a US-centric view and far from universal. I suppose you can consider it a co-nomination. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, presumably as co-nominator. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic seems to have potential per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right, but the current content appears to be mostly OR, and the topic, in principle, doesn't seem to be anything that could not just as easily be incorporated into Fuel tank, since the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten almost in it's entirety anyway. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs substantial improvement and referencing. But AFD is not cleanup and I believe the subject is notable.

From Google Book Snippet view:

Modern Diesel Technology: Diesel Engines - Page 219 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1401898092

Sean Bennett - 2009 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions High- pressure inlet Low-pressure outlet 3–10 pounds per square inch (psi) Fuel filter Drain Fuel tank Top view Return fuel ... Note that the use of anything but ULS fuel in a truck manufactured after 2007 can cause costly damage to emission ... Fuel Tank Design The fuel tank is always a chassis OEM-supplied component.

Safety and Performance Assessment of Ethanol Diesel Blends (E-Diesel)https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1428917489

The second highest RPN for the vehicle fuel tank failure mode involves ignition due to static electric discharge. Following the methanol fueling station design experience, a grounding wire is suggested to reduce the occurrence of this mode from a moderate (3) to a ... Spilled fuel fires as a result of a major accident with an E-diesel tanker truck or destruction of an E-diesel vehicle fuel tank can result in a ...

Fuels and Lubricants Handbook - Page 123 https://books.google.com/books?id=J_AkNu-Y1wQC

The degree of performance and the temperature depend on the engine, the vehicle design, and the fuel system ... in the United States to simulate the low temperature behavior of diesel fuel in the fuel tank of a diesel truck left overnight, in a ...

Fundamentals of Medium/Heavy Duty Diesel Engines - Page 439 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1284117537

Gus Wright - 2015 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Such exible tubing is designed to pass through the dierent sections of chassis to transfer fuel from the fuel tank to the engine. ... Nylon plastic lines are chemically compatible with diesel fuel and mold well with specialized connectors for ease of ... Unit Tank Vent Line Fuel Suction Line Fuel Return Line Tank and line connections for a mediumFIGURE 15-8 duty truck. ... eir design prevents the accumulation of contaminants, such as water, sediment, and microorganisms in the fuel tank.

Automobile Design Liability - Volume 1 - Page 313 https://books.google.com/books?id=1rq1AAAAIAAJ

Richard M. Goodman, ‎Center for Auto Safety - 1982 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions System-Fuel Tanks. DOM— December 14, 1976-January 20, 1977. Heavy duty diesel trucks equipped with optional dual 22 V4" cylindrical fuel tanks. Possibility that dual ZZVi" cylindrical fuel tanks support mounting brackets may crack at ...

Medium/Heavy Duty Truck Engines, Fuel & Computerized Management Systems https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1305856694

Sean Bennett - 2016 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Fuel tanks sectioned with internal baffles must be directly subjected to the steam within each section. ... Diesel fuel injection equipment is manufactured with minute clearances, so impurities in fuel, if not removed by the fuel subsystem, can ... Spinon filters are obviously easier to service and are the filter design of choice by ...

Title 49 - Transportation: Department of Transportation Parts 300 - 399 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1577857763

Office of Federal Register - 2006 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Joints of a fuel tank body must be closed by arc-, gas-, seam-, or spot-welding, by brazing, by silver soldering, or by ... Except for diesel fuel tanks, the fittings through which fuel is withdrawn from a fuel tank must be located above the normal ...

There is a lot of information specific to Diesel tanks, but no objection to merging into Fuel tank unless/until someone does a rewrite and decides to split it back out again. MB 19:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article might need some editing, however, I think improving the article would be better. Merging with an article on trucks might also be better. 700yuster (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if someone wants to attempt a TNT, I'm more than happy to see the article rewritten. But currently the only sourced statements in the article are 1) to a lengthy list of regulations, with no indication where the actual content came from, and 2) What appears to be an attempt to link to this article, which is from a manufacturer/seller of tanks, and fairly blatantly promotional, We believe no matter what kind of tank you buy it should look great when you get it.

I'm certainly willing to concede that many sufficiently broad topics can potentially form the basis of an article (Farm tractors tires, Plastics in computer manufacturing) and similar topics are surely going to have reliable sources available to make a great article, if someone wants to sit down and write it. But what we have currently is an essay, not an article.

We're it not probably prohibitively WP:POINTY, I would remove the 95% of the article that is very likely unreferenced WP:OR to emphasize exactly what it is we are considering keeping. But perhaps it's not too much so, since if the article is kept, I will certainly reduce it to a stub, which will be of little or no value, but kept none-the-less.

To quote TNT directly: If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic, per User:Timothyjosephwood. If one wants to write about a sub-sub-specialized niche topic such as this one, it would better be well-written and well-referenced. This one is neither, and once we remove all the OR and fluff virtually nothing would remain. If anyone wants to salvage this article I would perhaps change my mind, but I find the subject so uninspiring that I find this unlikely. I have often !voted keep for bad articles about potentially interesting subjects, but this is a bad article about an uninteresting subject, and a textbook WP:TNT material. No such user (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 9 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina Campanella[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual; no evidence of notability in the article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 08:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of two similar WP:SPA articles on this person and her small business, in this case sourced only to her company website. That "(h)er illustrations and photography have reached local musicians" is not a claim to notability (as well as being unsubstantiated) and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails to establish WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC notability. (Possible CSD A7?) AllyD (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:GNG, and frankly WP:NOTLINKEDIN. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:37, 11 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 and redirect to Nelumbo nucifera. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Lotus[edit]

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

Non-notable clothing company. CapitalSasha ~ talk 08:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the former redirect which was repurposed by this company article (i.e. revert to edit from 06:25, 19 June 2009 which had persisted until today's WP:SPA edit). No evidence provided or found that this small business meets either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG notability. (Note there are other similarly named clothing businesses,for example in India.) AllyD (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am noting too that the editor had already been warned about a previous article overwrite before this one. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly corporate spam, and quite blatant at that, with external links in the body of the article, puffed-up language, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and restore former redirect per AllyD); the article effectively concedes the company's non-notability on its face. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:39, 11 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. Article is in severe need of an overhaul, though. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican folk music[edit]

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

This article has been in its present state pretty much since creation in 2008. It looks like the topic of Jamaican folk music is covered under Mento, which is a more complete article. It also looks like mento is the preferred term for the genre, although I could be wrong. Maybe this is salvageable by someone who knows better, but I dunno. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly the article needs a great deal of work. However, the terms "folk music" and mento are certainly not synonyms - mento is just one (late) variety of Jamaican folk music. Much work needs to be done on the article, but the subject matter is notable, sources clearly exist, and the priority should be to use those sources to create a better article. By the way, there is also Music of Jamaica (also a poorly referenced article) to throw into the mix. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the relationship is something like nested subsets. Mento being a subset of Jamaican Folk Music which is, in turn, a subset of Music of Jamaica. If that is the case, then there are certainly sources for Jamaican Folk Music as the Google Scholar search above indicates. The state of the latter two articles is a content matter for their talk pages. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 10 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Package Waste via Express Delivery in China[edit]

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

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article about a thing that happens; it's an original research essay about something the creator is proposing as a model for what should start happening. Sample text: "The origin of ecommerce dates back to the invention of electricity, computers, cables and the internet." (Wowee zowee, I'm so glad an encyclopedia told me that electricity and the internet were prerequisites for e-commerce — I might never have guessed otherwise!) This is simply not something that belongs on an encyclopedia in this form — I'd have deleted it already if I could find a speedy criterion that it fit into. Bearcat (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well-intentioned but quite unsuitable essay.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unabashed WP:OR. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:42, 11 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. joe decker ^talk 04:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Eucharistic Brothers of Divine Will[edit]

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

This may not be a hoax, but it is hard to see how these two men with their 8 cows is notable, even if it a real religious order. The article implies there are more than 2 men, but one of the sources says 2 men. Grahame (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe one day... not today. No sources worth any kind of notability are available in my search. Lourdes 07:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this microscopic group, or couple, exists. The two of them. Plus, maybe a third in the minor leagues. "The other day we had six hours of adoration to pray for rain because the farmers were desperate. A few days later – it rained." Utterly non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By far too little for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but they've got moos!, yes coola moos are great but that doesn't make the subject notable, okaaayyy, i suppose its a delete then, as it doesn't meet WP:GNG and there aren't any useable sources available, (if only there was a wikiarticle on "list of religious groups with ~~moos~~ cattle"...) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 9 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 Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bach (businessman)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and sourced entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him, of a charity CEO. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person is entitled to an article just because he exists, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "D&ILover" (the organization is called the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, if you're wondering why loving "D&I" would suggest a COI.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced properly — I'll even quite happily list him in the worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT in Canada work group — but this is not the type of sourcing that it takes to get the head of an organization into Wikipedia as a standalone topic separate from the organization's article. Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE portion with his organization Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion because bio is very much like a resume with no significant coverage by reliable sources. Canuckle (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge some info into Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion. As an individual, I don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Most coverage is either not independent, or not in-depth enough. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:17, 9 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 as unambiguous advertising. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Reed[edit]

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

Reads like a resume, appears to be autobiographical. Out of the sources given, most don't seem to mention her personally. There are a couple that include brief quotes from her but I do not see evidence of notability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. Could possibly be speedy deleted as promotional. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as egregiously promotional. WP:TNT. I've placed a speedy delete G11 tag on it it's so terribly spammy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahishmati-Kalkeya War[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a war. This is claimed here only as a plot point in a fiction film, and the film's article does little to help clarify whether it's a fictionalized account of a real-life event or a wholly fictional invention of the screenwriters. If it is real, then what's needed here is reliable source coverage about the war to properly verify that it's real -- and if it's pure fiction, then there's no compelling need for a standalone article about it separate from its parent film. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything indicating this was a real war. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Mahishmati, the kingdom was a real ancient kingdom of India and has a source that says the movie is about "a fictional kingdom that shares the same name as the ancient Mahishmati kingdom." Therefore the war depicted in the movie would be fictional as well. MB 03:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actorworks[edit]

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

Seems non-notable. A quick Google search provides no good sources and the article itself has not references. Susana Hodge (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A7. This not a school per se but a training academy, a commercial training Academy at that. Would need to meet CORP and doesn't even make an assertion that it could; hence A7. John from Idegon (talk) 10:57, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Lowery[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a five-year-old boy, whose only substantive claim of notability is that he received a large number of Christmas cards after his diagnosis with terminal cancer was publicized on social media. As sad as his prognosis is, "kid with cancer" is not in and of itself a reason why someone gets immortalized in an encyclopedia; it's not rare enough to be automatically noteworthy just for being unusual, the phenomenon of using e-mail chain letters or social media posts to get greeting cards sent to an ill child is not a unique angle, and even the number of cards he got isn't unusually large as these things go -- so there's just no discernible reason why this would satisfy the ten-year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. I agree with your reasoning. There's not much justification to having a separate article for this boy, as tragic as his situation is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

**Either weak keep or weak transwiki into Wikiversity as a case study I personally had a closed ones who is diagnosed with a late stage cancer, so if the subject did indeed fail WP:BLP, I may advocate a transwiki of this article into Wikiversity as a case study for further research. But I'm not sure whether his family will be okay with that transwiki option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - ~~The subject did indeed famous for one event per WP:BLP1E so I reiterate my position. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]
    - Also for Bearcat's arguments regarding the ten year test, I have to say that significance cannot degrade over time. It can only remain constant or increase as the time progresses per WP:DEGRADE. The subject is not significant enough to warrant an article, but it certainly warrant a case study at Wikiversity, ideally with his family's consent. I rest my case for now.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
      - ~~Wikiversity is an educational program, not a dumping ground for random bits that couldn't make the cut at Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]
        After I have go through the links presented by 86.20.193.222 I have decided to include "weak keep" into my position. The subject demonstrated basic WP:GNG based on the new evidences presented by the IP contributor. But I'm still not sure whether his family will be okay with that.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is some notability that I'm not seeing, there's nothing here that warrants an article (cf. WP:BIO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL). The above comment to send to Wikiversity makes no sense whatsoever. Brad v 20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news and nothing here rises above passing daily news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is not BLP1E, because there are reliable sources covering several distinct events, such as a) getting over 300,000 xmas cards, b) raising of money for specialist treatment in the USA, c) winning the "Match of the Day" goal award. Being a cancer-sufferer is not a single event; it's not as if the stories were only e.g. discussing someone who had died from cancer (and was thus 'known' for that single reason. The "Goal of the Month" award, is quite significant in terms of notability. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure why the above user mentions "NOTMEMORIAL", because Lowery is not dead. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,

- A charity football match between Newcastle and Sunderland was arranged to raise money for him [5] (ITV News)
- A pop-music single reached number 15 in the charts [6] (Chronicle)
- He was a special guest-star at the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards [7] (Mail Online)
- A woman was arrested over a facebook post about him [8] (Mirror)

86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:24, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading revolution[edit]

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

A few different publications used the term "reading revolution" in articles, this is true, but this seems like an unwarranted synthesis of those articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does seem like WP:SYNTH with no reliable source showing unifying notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We might redirect to an article on the History of printing, but we should certainly not keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with all the above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 9 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 List of state Green Parties in the United States. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Green Party[edit]

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

Non-notable state party with no references. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent Green Party of the United States, which is actually notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 5 references easily accessible from a google search. The party has been running candidates for well over a decade and multiple independent sources back up both its existence and cover it in some detail. Passes WP:GNG--TM 12:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability present as an official state party that is relevant and worthy of a search into it. --JohnnyCashMoney (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note JohnnyCashMoney (talk · contribs) has only one other edit besides this AfD, and it's another AfD. Account created today. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as clearly only a state-level group for the entire part itself and their group map of it shows, thus nothing actually significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest it be re-directed to, SwisterTwister (talk · contribs)? Green Party of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that! Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A related discussion in which I participated was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party, and ended in a keep. Nor is the article at Green Party of the United States a suitable merge target, as it is a large page, and the normal organization for the state-level parties is standalone articles. Redirect without merge makes no sense as there would be no place to write about the topic. There is also the possibility of making a page of state parties, most of which would have standalone articles, and merging this state party there, but this would require a content contributor who wants to do that organization.
Meanwhile, objections of the nomination have been addressed. Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge to the new article, List of state Green Parties in the United States. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I loved the idea Unscintillating (talk · contribs) had for a list, so I created List of state Green Parties in the United States with links to the party's Wikipedia page if they had one, or listed it with their website. If they didn't have a website I provided a citation. Only one did I have trouble finding a citation for, so if anyone wants to add it, and/or make the list more comprehensive, go nuts. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, thanks. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Harrington[edit]

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

Non notable attorney, has served several non notable student government positions and run for local office. I tagged this as an IP, and am now nominating for deletion, as the article's creator, a WP:SPA, has removed the prod. JNW (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Particularly not satisfying WP:POLITICIAN and nothing else because of the fact he's only a Student member of the group and then only a "hopeful" for a local mayorship, none of which are enough for his own notability and there's no automatic bestowment of notability because of the events themselves. Also, then simply being a "hopeful" for Senate is not enough to satisfy notability as a politician, hence all of this is simply too soon in his current political career. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any evidence of notability. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a real political candidate in Louisiana (he ran for mayor; youngest candidate).^[1] Also, this person was elected as the first-ever white student President at a historically black college (Southern University Law Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana) in a state where race relations are a very real and relevant issue.^[2] This article sheds positive light on this issue and an individual who successfully demonstrated the bridging of the gap between people of different races in a Southern state. People will want to search for something/someone like this.--PelicanP (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're the creator of the article. Question: are you also the SUBJECT of the article? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, unimportant election candidate that lost. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious signs of notability present. Louisiana politician/attorney. Loss of election irrelevant. Accomplishment at histocially black college clearly remarkable. Clearly on the rise and relevant to Louisiana political landsclear. People would search for this despite its localization to Louisiana. Represented over 200,000 people statewide....kind of a big deal, i.e. notability clear. --Tarzany (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that AfD is not a vote. The quantity of accounts that sign up to add comments here does not sway the argument. Please reconsider your actions. To the closer: This account was created today and its only edits are to this AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Too soon. The accomplishments (which are impressive) don't quite meet the standard of notability, which IMO require notability, irrespective of the subject's worth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Three Candidates Vying To Be Benton's Next Mayor". KTBS. Retrieved January 3, 2017.
^ "Baton Rouge Law Enforcement Officers Shot". The New York Times. Retrieved January 3, 2017.

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gersh Kuntzman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of article does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and WP:RS requirements, nor the extended BLP requirements BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx)))} 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Person may not have been notable when the other two discussions happened in 2012 but the continual news stories that talk about his comments make him notable now. --Majora (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I agree with you.--連綿 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He may not have been notable earlier on, but he is now. The article has been under constant attack from people with (based on their edits) obvious right-wing sympathies for a long time now (see page history and protection log...), trying to insult and discredit Kuntzman in every way, adding tags questioning Kuntzman's notability etc etc, and I see this nomination as just another attempt to discredit him. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Thomas.W:, I nominated this page for deletion because both previous nominations gained no consensus. Furthermore, one could make the argument that the only way he's notable at all is because of his inflammatory remarks, eg: the ambassador deserved to die, or the ptsd remark. Nonetheless, those events are passing in nature, and non-notable, due to their lack of lasting impact. Finally, I'd advise you to avoid ad-hominem attacks and speculations on editor's motivations. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx)))} 09:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He may not have been notable a few years ago but he is notable now Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SALC[edit]

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

First entry is an unused/made up acronym, second entry is another disambiguation page. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 15:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial inclination is to delete. There is no indication in any of the linked articles (either the first, listed directly, or the two listed on the linked disambiguation page). older ≠ wiser 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Linear combination of atomic orbitals, as a seemingly commonly used acronym for Symmetry-adapted linear combination in the meaning of that atomic-orbital article. @Bkonrad: I just added that to it. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is that common? The most common thing I'm getting when googling SALC is "Street area and Lighting Conference". I've gone down four pages and don't see "Symmetry-adapted linear combination". Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for "Symmetry-adapted linear combination", three among the first ten hits use it (including the very first hit), and that's without actually looking at any of the four youtube hits among those ten and skipping the wikipedia/wikibooks echo-chamber. Narrowing down the search for the acronym to the general area of study, googling for [salc chemistry -youtube -wikipedia], every one of the first ten hits uses it to mean "symmetry-adapted linear combinations". DMacks (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like holding a finger on the scale to restrict search to the specific field of interest. That only shows that the acronym is used for "symmetry-adapted linear combinations" within the field. It doesn't say anything about whether it is the primary topic (which would be result of redirecting the term). Searching on wikipedia shows a variety of mentions of the term, including some that correspond with the top results in a generic Google search. Seems to me preferable to leave the term a redlink and let reader search among the possible results, or perhaps update the disambiguation page to include existing mentions of the term in wikipedia articles. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agree with above poster, Letting the user use the search function would be better than the current disambig page, there are times where the user just has to refine their search terms Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the first google-hit for "SALC" for me that is on this topic is number 18, and number 8 via Google Scholar. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough WP:DABMENTIONS for a disambiguation to be useful. SALC is also used in Southern Africa Litigation Centre v National Director of Public Prosecutions, although it appears Southen Africa Litigation Centre is in need of an article. European settlement of South Australia includes a mention of "South Australian Land Company (SALC)". There's a few other minor mentions in the search results, it just depends where the line is drawn. It wouldn't make sense to have entries for things that are too trivial, although a case can be made for inclusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also "salC" is apparently a gene, though again we currently don't have an article about it yet (it's part of the Salinomycin#Biosynthesis pathway). DMacks (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add some of those in, go ahead. But in it's current state, it's pretty useless. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added several more legitimate dab page entries. PamD 22:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: same as above reasons ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changing my "redirect" !vote, struck above), as we now have multiple reasonable meanings (based on reported google searching, etc) that have their own articles. DMacks (talk) 10:52, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Watson[edit]

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

Promotional biography of non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him as opposed to coverage of an org he is involved with duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of references to Watson as the key person in the sources. If the sources did not mention Watson and instead just mentioned the organization there may have been more reason to put them aside, I don't see that doubt here. --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of two notable organizations (ie with articles on Wikipedia) and enough coverage out there about him as an individual. Edwardx (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well justified by sourcing. Spicemix (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founder of two notable organizations and enough coverage out there about him as an individual. FFA P-16 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canvass for a Cause. Most of the sourcing regarding Canvass activities (except the Cal Humanities interview) include just passing mentions of Watson, use of him as a spokesman for group. The Gadget Guys material comes basically down to two sources: the San Diego LGBT News piece, and that's a local weekly so that's of limited weight, and a HuffPost "contributor" piece. Contributor pieces are not primarily under HuffPost editorial control (per the reference's page, "Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site.") and thus do not have WP:RS status. This is an article created by a now-banned user and maintained largely by a sock of that banned user and an editor who claims to be the subject of this article. Much of the information contained is not actually in the references indicated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish the article to be merged, you can raise a proposal on the article talk page. If you wish to see a conflict of interest reviewed, then this would be better raised at WP:COIN. For this AfD I would rather see a keep/delete discussion focused on reliable sources; the other issues you are raising are tangents to that decision and appears to duplicate your existing comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTres_Watson. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a perfectly cromulent !vote in an AFD discussion, as you can see at WP:AFD. That the article is a promo piece by banned and conflicted users goes to explaining why the content should not be trusted as matching the sources. That I presented some subset of this information on some other page should not be an impediment to it being included here, as one should not presume that everyone involved in this discussion has read all of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up your specific comments:

Merge is not the same thing as redirect. If this article is not deleted (a keep outcome looks likely) then there is no reason to discuss a redirect, but a merge may still be a non-contentious later proposal on the article talk page.
Your claim that the article is "a promo piece by banned and conflicted users" appears to be attempting to create drama. The non-blocked user you are pointedly making claims in this AfD of acting with a conflict of interest, has already made it very clear they are uninterested in responding to drama on the LGBT studies noticeboard. If you are unable to respect that request, then I shall create a section at COIN on your behalf and that of the account in question, to avoid giving any justification for repeating these claims in different forums without first presenting the evidence for a civil review in the correct place.

Your use of cromulent and reductio ad absurdum rhetoric seems to indicate you are intending to be humorous, however when mixed with critical allegations attempts at humour are likely to be read as intending to offend or in fact be ad hominem argument. Try to avoid appearing this way, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up your specific comments:

Yes, I know the difference between merge and redirect. My !vote was for redirect. I am not sure what part of that was not clear.
Your attempt to tell me how you wish me to vote appears a blatant suggestion that this discussion is suppose to run toward your fancy, and that someone whose vote does not concur with yours or fails to use a structure you invent for disagreement is invalid. You may want to consider how offensive your own comments come across before making presumptions about the motives of others. I make zero apologies for trying to diffuse your offensive discussion techniques with the light-hearted (and cromulent) invocation of the term "cromulent".
Your statement that "The non-blocked user you are pointedly making claims in this AfD of acting with a conflict of interest, has already made it very clear they are uninterested in responding to drama on the LGBT studies noticeboard" is just plain false. You appear to be assuming that this post by a user (whom I will not ping, due to their request to avoid drama) is by the same user as this one, which is a post by a different user to that first user's talk page. Unless you are claiming that a user is having a conversation with their own sock, then this statement is off-base.

Let me know if there are any questions about any of that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake. I misread the history of who said what. I still firmly believe that COI issues should go to COIN, not be discussed here as they just muddy the waters as to whether the subject is suitable for a BLP. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those claiming there is enough coverage about him, Where is it? Not in this advert which is bombarded with passing mentions, PR, non reliable sources and non mentions. A breakdown of current sources:

A business talking about themselves. Not independent coverage from a reliable source. Just like a press release, complete with glowing quotes from satisfied customers.
Simple news about a lawsuit. More about CFAC, mentions Watson as executive director working for them, nothing more about him.
Perez Hilton. Gossip blogger. Not a reliable source
Simple news about a lawsuit. More about CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
Appears to be a press release. About CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
About CFAC, has a quote from Watson, nothing more about him. Not a reliable source. "California Humanities is a non-profit that promotes the humanities in California in order to help create “a state of open mind.”"
About Nico D’Amico-Barbour, barely mentions Watson. Independent Media Center is not a reliable source.
Reads like a press release. Has a quote from Watson, nothing more about him.
Simple news event. Has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
Simple news about a lawsuit. More about CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
Simple news event with no mention of Watson. Does not support the claim mad. Does not even mention CFAC
Appears to be a press release. About CFAC, has some quotes from Watson, nothing more about him.
dead link, dead domain, not in wayback. Consider It Done San Diego is/was a tech support company. It became Gadget Guys "Watson incorporated Consider it Done, which eventually became The Gadget Guys in December 2014". Not independent coverage from a reliable source.
a tweet?. "Check out #RadySchool alum Tres Watson's ..." Not independent coverage from a reliable source.
Business Listing
"This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." Not a reliable source

This is blatant corporate spam for a man who has used Wikipedia to promote his own organisation. Spam from paid shills operating in violation of Wikipedia's Terms Of Use. Watson complaining that this afd was created due to homophobia [9] [10] is frankly offensive and distracts from the real issues. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these complaints to WP:COIN where you can provide the evidence and ask for a review.

Your claim "Spam from paid shills operating in violation of Wikipedia's Terms Of Use" is inappropriate. There is no evidence that anyone is being paid or is a "shill". These are serious allegations, you must provide the evidence and have a review if you persist with these. As far as we know someone may be pretending to be the subject of this BLP, it would hardly be the first time that's happened.

An AfD discussion is not the right venue to report spam, or to report paid editing, or to complain about someone complaining about feeling harassed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The is no evidence??? Bullshit. Try looking at the sock puppet investigation listed above. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Xyxyboy has been pretending to be someone else for over 10 years? Nice staying power. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI relates to the account Brilbluterin, which made 3 edits to the article, the last being on 16 November 2016. Your allegations about paid editing and shills appear to relate to other accounts and nothing like this was said in the existing SPI case. If you want to continue to make allegations, then provide your evidence of paid editing and shill-ing at COIN or SPI, this is not an appropriate forum. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI relates to Brilbluterin, who launched the article, and includes as a confirmed sock Rogercosts, who has edited the article within the past week. You may feel that the raising of COI issues muddies the water in this discussion, but whether the content is worthwhile or just a stack of promo goes to such questions as to the difference between !voting merge' (i.e., this topic belongs with that one, but the material should be largely saved) or redirect (this topic belongs with that one, but there is not much of value in this article that needs to be saved.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where sock accounts are being used, then these need to be warned or blocked if necessary. What I see here is a lot of tangential allegations about spam and paid editing which cannot be proven, and these claims need to cease. If the subject of the article has been editing it, then again, they need to be informed or warned in a civil way about why this is unhelpful. In this AfD we should have focused on the encyclopaedic notability of the subject and the reliability of sources, the rest of this is tangential fluff that should be handled in the correct place.

My opinion remains the same, I'd rather see the article kept and trimmed down to ensure that what remains is encyclopaedic and neutral. If necessary there might be a chance at having a sensible discussion about whether a merge is needed, so long as the organizations meet WP:GNG.

I suggest that from this point Duffbeerforme takes more care to remain civil and avoid making inflammatory and unsupportable allegations. Drama does not help to educate those who may be mistakenly editing with a conflict of interest, nor does it leave them in a position to ask for advice in the future.

For the sake of transparency, after writing the above, I have responded to an email request for advice from the apparent subject of the article. I have advised them to avoid any further edits to articles related to their work, and limit themselves in the future to talk page requests for corrections to avoid any appearance of non-neutral direct editing. I don't think any more action than this advice will be needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go lecturing anyone to take "more care to remain civil and avoid making inflammatory and unsupportable allegations" please reflect on the fact that that's what you've been doing. Your repeated use of false, misleading, and exaggerated information is not appropriate. Your badgering people to !vote in the format that you want them to is also not appropriate. You do not own this discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I'll stop contributing to this discussion. There's been far too much drama and unpleasantness that I find increasingly hard to just accept in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 9 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bilzerian (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect reverted without comment. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The really should be a redirect to the parent album, but that has been delayed for at least three years now. In the meantime, two paragraphs on Pitchfork and three on Complex are about all that's available in WP:RS, and even those are really little more than "here's a new song" with links to YouTube and SoundCloud. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 11 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 Lassie (1954 TV series). Milburn's suggestion can be discussed in greater detail later, the page history is still there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Miller (Lassie)[edit]

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

Do we really need an article for every Lassie character that isn't Lassie? Also, created by LTA sockmaster. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources do not show why Miller would at all be an important character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lassie. A fairly minor fictional character. The article is nothing but plot, and the character doesn't have any reliable sources that I can find discussing him in any meaningful way. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the various characters could be merged into a list article? They do seem to have some not-completely terrible sources. Or would outright deletion be preferable? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 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 merge to Sildenafil. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Viagra[edit]

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

This is information that can be in either of the two "see also" links, and in fact would seem to be more meaningful in "counterfeit meds" with maybe a mention in Viagra.. It does not seem to require its own article. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding material to the article based on reliable sources. I believe I'll find enough sources to get several thousand words of reliably sourced material. This article, if it remains too small after a few weeks, merging should be considered instead of deletion. -- Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 11:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reason to have it's own article. This information should probably be integrated into the Viagra article. Grammarphile (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Viagra article, merging any sourced info that isn't already there. Its a pretty unnecessary fork. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it exists, but this is an unnecessary fork. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this should be merged into the main article. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect Per Bearian and 64.183.45.226 Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Sildenafil#Society_and_culture Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect - seems like a reasonable option --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:48, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BDA Partners[edit]

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

Not notable.

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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A series of August 2015 edits by a WP:COI editor User:Bdallc left the article with primary sources and removed various listed awards. Viewing this earlier version may be more appropriate to assess whether there is sufficient notability. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-sourced / weakly sourced corporate spam and just a firm going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just corporate Spam. do not adhere standards set by Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 19:20, 10 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. per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie di Stasio[edit]

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

Privacy request from RdS Kirkday (talk) 06:35, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Now fixed, I hope, without losing anything. AllyD (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But it needs some work. I could not see any public references in the current article to the personal details, so where did they come from ? All these should be expunged as per BLP regardless unless they are publicly available somewhere and can be referenced? All but one of the current references are primary so currently fails GNG? But note there are sufficient IRS out there for GNG but the article needs a rewrite or possibly just a reversion! to a former version, it needs balance, for example:

I note that the user requesting the privacy concern has removed such very publicly available reliable secondary references and others from the article already, suggesting a COI? The earlier version references do though need properly wikifying. Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I want to oblige the request for deletion on privacy. The article is not encyclopedic and would not be missed if it were gone. --do ncr am 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In support of the subject's request per the deletion policy on relatively unknown BLPs. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:36, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Watch Company[edit]

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

Non-notable watch company that cannot be sourced (reliably) and only ref is to their website. Their claim to sell luxury watches is credible, however the only coverage I have found is from the watchmakers website(s) that confirms they carry their brand (ie. Omega watches, Tag Huer, etc...) and an article from Indian Vogue that is more of an advertisement. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP Spiderone 19:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unremarkable retailer. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn per request by Pri D. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet Gian[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sources in the article are not independent reliable sources. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeoffreyT2000

Jeet is very well known author and a successful business man as well. He has penned 2 successful books and is working on his third.

His books' launch parties were attended by big celebrities in Mumbai, India.

I have created his page and I am still adding content and reference links.

Please do NOT delete the page of Jeet Gian.

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards Pri D (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@nominator - have you looked for other sources, ouside of the article? There are hundreds of sources at G-news, such as this one from the Times of India. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeoffreyT2000 @GeoffreyT2000,

Please do remove the notice 'this page is considered for deletion' from the page of Jeet Gian. More information has been added along with all references as well. Jeet Gian is an Indian author, and this page helps provide information about him to everyone. Request you to remove the 'deletion notice' from the page.

Thank You. Regards Pri D (talk) 08:11, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate clauses[edit]

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

PROD was removed by author and provided the sources. Still contains OR and possibly NOT content. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search identifies at least seven books specifically about boilerplate clauses. Accordingly, this is a highly notable topic, and the article should be expanded and improved rather then being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable per Cullen, but should be cleaned up and probably moved to the singular after the AfD is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police Inspector Blog[edit]

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

The article seems to be written as a PR piece for the blog. The problem with blogs is that Wikipedia needs to hold them to a very high standard indeed, and this article does not meet that standard. Had this been presented today at WP:AFC I would have referred it back to the submitter thus:

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

I level the same criticisms at it as the article it is rather than the draft I would have reviewed in that manner. With regard to the references we have a welter of primary sources. The Daily Mail is very rarely considered, too, to be a reliable source.

I contend that the topic itself might be notable enough for a substantially edited article if references can be found that meet the criteria we have. I would not object to an outcome that migrates it to the Draft: namespace for it to be worked upon in peace and quiet, but I do not believe this article, with these references, is suitable for main namespace. The topic is most assuredly interesting and I found it to be illuminating, but that does not of itself mean it qualifies for an article unless the references show different. Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a matter of record this was reviewed and accepted at AFC in 2011 by an editor who is now retired. Had they not been retired I would have asked for their thoughts in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put this blog up a few years ago due to the (then) media attention it was getting and as a favour to Inspector Gadget (who I've never met but I used to comment regularly on his blog). If this needs some trimming then I am happy to do this however I am not adept at understanding Wiki policies and/ or protocols so if anyone would like to point me in the right direction then feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.204.180 (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the element in quotes in the nomination an excellent place to start. It has links to the great majority of useful places. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've trimmed the article down to a bit-more-than-a-stub and added sources. There was actually quite a lot already cited in the previous version, including significant coverage in the press (not just the Mail), and a direct response to one of the blog's posts from the Minister of Policing, so I don't think notability is in question. @Timtrent: please note, unlike the usual practice at AfC, we base our discussions at AfD on the sources that are available, not just the ones cited in the article. The burden is on the nominator to ensure that adequate sources aren't available before nominating. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Roe's arguments and cleanup. I'm afraid the nominator failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:09, 9 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 Wine (software)#Third-party applications. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wine-Doors[edit]

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

this is not notable software also the article is not encyclopedic and the multiple issues template shows other problems with this article Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were a handful more sources like this one it might have promise, but that's pretty much all I found approaching an RS. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect article makes no clear claim of notability, has no cited WP:RS discussing it, and other than the one mentioned above I can't find any either. If Wine (software) has a section discussing this type of functionality/wrapper/interface/controller/whatever, the ref is sufficient to mention it there (with a redirect from the nominated article). DMacks (talk) 04:44, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Break Stories[edit]

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

Concerns with notability. FASTILY 07:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not mentioned in any independent source that I can locate: Noyster (talk), 12:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find reliable secondary sources to establish notability. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe one day, but a month or less after its creation is definitely WP:TOOSOON, as evidenced by the lack of coverage...by basically anyone anywhere. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension Zero (American band)[edit]

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

No indication of notability under the criteria of WP:MUSIC - one album that did not chart. Karst (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not qualify under WP:BAND or WP:GNG. No indication that it has charted on anything other than mp3.com, which does not qualify under WP:CHARTS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add:Also, obvious vanity article by SPA with same account name as the band. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Eggishorn covered. Cylon B (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not a repository of fan pages, which this article is. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ann K. Schmalzried[edit]

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

The sources here are connected to the beauty pageant she won in a way that leads to them not coming close to adding towards passing the GNG. My search for more sources on Schmalzried turned up no reliable sources on her. She was Miss Florida, but this alone is not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also could not find any mention of her post-Miss Florida. I assume she got married and changed her name, but that is just speculation. No indication of notability. MB 04:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Could not find coverage unrelated to Miss Florida. Also no coverage under married name, Ann S. Markham. CBS527^Talk 15:59, 10 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 procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Gillespie[edit]

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

~~This article is just all gossip and promotion. Come on Wikipedia. Check the sources.~~ KiwiMan (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and improve obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, already passes WP:BASIC and plenty of WP:RS for her in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:09, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Gillespie[edit]

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

So I wasnt able to create the 2nd AfD link here - but these pieces that this article is sourced too are all written by the company she works for. Please check but I dont believe this radio host is notable. All paid for press releases and articles. DominikRuben (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heaps of articles on her. https://www.google.com/search?q=Pauline+Gillespie&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ALeKk00f9Pa4gaHLkT4pCzO4aylXTGQBhg:1622377459371&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD36CBs_HwAhV2zTgGHbw2BNsQ_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=360&bih=630&dpr=2 Nexus000 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Previous AfD is in this page's history, Special:PermaLink/758592538. In my opinion the nominator is a sock of the same nominator. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BASIC and the multiple independent and reliable sources added to the article; she was one of "New Zealand's highest-profile broadcasters" and one of the "household names on New Zealand radio for decades" (New Zealand Herald), and a magazine columnist (Newshub) and has recently released an autobiography (Seven Sharp, Otago Daily Times). Biographical information is also available: (New Zealand Herald, New Zealand Herald). Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nomination made by sock. dudhhr_Contribs 22:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per above as maybe a bad faith nomination made by sock. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Someone that knows how, close this as keep and WP:SNOW. Nominator has since been banned. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Mathura-Jeffree[edit]

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

~~A complete and utter promotion of an article. No reliable sources. All puff.~~ KiwiMan (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and improve obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, already passes WP:BASIC and plenty of WP:RS for him in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 01:50, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NCRHA Division I Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships[edit]

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

Completely unsource. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. Pretty much everything the author made is like this. He is long gone now but for a long time he was making huge swathes of sports trivia articles, templates and so on. I feel a bit sorry for him. If he had be stopped sooner then he would have avoided wasting a lot of his time on stuff that just gets deleted and maybe he could have made his own wiki somewhere else for this stuff instead. Anyway, its no good to us. It has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per DanielRigal. Unreferenced lists of subjects that don't really add anything to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, let's delete these per WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 9 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 Phil Gersh. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gersh Agency[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass the notability requirements in WP:ORGCRITE. The only references in the article refer to the owner of the agency, not the agency itself. Drewmutt (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rename to Phil Gersh? Jacknstock (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Re possible move to Phil Gersh, he appears to have been a talent agent of some renown: entry in an obit collection, Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2004. Some results also come up in Google books: link, although I'm not sure if this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Phil Gersh. Significant obits in New York Times and LA Times indicate notability for the founder, but no significant coverage of the agency. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:50, 10 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 Gag Manga Biyori. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kōsuke Masuda[edit]

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

Manga artist known mainly for one long-running title called Gag Manga Biyori which was adapted into several anime. His second series Greece Shinwa Gekijo doesn't have much notability. Is that enough to maintain a second article or should it be redirected to his most notable work? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gag Manga Biyori as that appears to be his most notable work and he seems to lack enough coverage in either Japanese or English. Although he is probably not independently notable of his manga, he is a possible search term (provided that the non-macroned forms also be redirected). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Narutolovehinata. Possible search term but having a successful work is not enough by itself for the author to have an article. A redirect seems the most appropriate action.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:00, 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.