< 28 February	2 March >

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shilstone[edit]

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

Article fails to cite any reliable sources; also fails to meet the requirements for BLPs, etc. Bit-roles and guest-roles do not equate requirement for a singular BLP article. livelikemusic talk! 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he was allegedly a recurring character for a season of OLTL, most of his parts before and since have been one-namers who disappear. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Simpson (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ([[User talk:JMHamo|talk]]) 23:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Jacob20162016 (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Portsmouth F.C. appears to be part of EFL League Two, which is listed as a fully professional league. Simpson is listed as a member of Portsmouth, so apparently he meets WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Simply being attached to a club in The Football League is not enough to meet WP:NFOOTY, you need to have made your first-team debut first. JMHamo (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely right, JMHamo - I can find no record of him having appeared in a game with either Porsmourth or his former professional team. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not actually played in a match that would cause him to pass the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J 947 06:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado Toast[edit]

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

Does any of this meet WP:GNG requirements? I am skeptical, but I would invite the wider editorial community to offer their opinions. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC) And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Well, it appears I goofed in bringing this article to the AfD discussion. Feel free to close the discussion, and I would like to thank everyone for their input. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, and improve. This article is written by a new editor and like many new articles it will benefit from editing to make it better conform to Wikipedia style, sourcing, and content standards. It should be renamed Avocado toast in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. The subject is notable (indeed, ubiquitous and unavoidable, if you live in certain parts of the world), and two solid sources are already provided, containing substantive discussion of avocado toast's history and recent popularity. In addition to the cited Washington Post and Vice/Broadly articles, other potential sources include, for example, ABC News ("Avocado Toast May Be The Hottest Breakfast Food Since Regular Toast"), The Australian ("Avocado toast even dreamier"—quote: "Avocado toast is everywhere you turn, and I don’t think it’s an overstatement to call it the emblematic food of our times"); and Los Angeles magazine ("In Defense of Avocado Toast", with the entertaining subtitle "Just because Gwyneth Paltrow endorses it doesn’t automatically mean it’s bad"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep And rename, per Arxiloxos. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV as it stands and, as Arxiloxos notes, there are many more reliable sources out there with coverage from Australia, to North and South America and to Europe. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legit, notable food item. But be careful of spam on this page. --203.175.67.197 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while not popular when Wikipedia started in 2001, it is now well-established by the sources. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Hamza[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No concern was given for proposal, hence the objection. However, Hamza has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.

The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G7 since it was blanked several times, including by the author. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all relevant criteria Spiderone 12:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and would possibly recommend speedy as well as per nominator. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wilkos[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. A heavy promotional tone in regards to the business that he founded. Not much notability outside of playing football in high school and college and having a job. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT (I'm not sure why this person might be notable), and because we are not a free webhost for resumes; we are a charity. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. Lot of puffery with no sources to back up. G-searches provided nothing to establish notability. Most of article vilolate WP:NPOV. CBS527^Talk 17:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, no sources to prove notoriety.Sgerbic (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Green Party Archives[edit]

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

I did a pretty extensive search and I couldn't find any sources to indicate any WP:Notability. Alsee (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into California Green Party – Content should be kept. J 947 22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics. J 947 22:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Hoover Institution Collection; http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c84b33pj/?query=California+Green+Arch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank chapot (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable on its own for its extensive collection. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Merge into Green Party of California per J947 (talk · contribs). Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Me-123567-Me: What notability guideline does that satisfy? J 947 04:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As clearly failing WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:BASIC. I recommend discounting the contribution from Me-123567-Me who has shown a failure to understand basic notability policies as evidenced at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavender Greens. AusLondonder (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not acting in good faith. No attacking other editors. Be civil. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is not a war zone! Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me-123567-Me Apologies if I caused offence. That wasn't my intention. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A library archive may support the notability of the subject (ie Green Party) but is not usually notable in itself. A subject cannot inherit notability. On its own, this archive in the Hoover Institute clocks in at 19 linear feet--not exceptional by archive standards; I don't see any standalone references that talk specifically about the archive. Does not meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are notable archives in the world. This is not among them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no sources outside of its internal universe. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I would encourage the delete !vote r s to consider the possibility of changing their !votes to a redirect or a merge. J 947 02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would a merge or redirect help? Any search for California Green Party will go to the same place. "There's no there, there," famously said Alice B. Toklas of Oakland, California. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this getting merged as a section. Green Party of California already this in the external links section, and three sentences on the archives would become 20% of that article.

We don't have redirects for "unlikely search terms", and page view statistics[8] literally craps out with an error message because it was viewed exactly zero times in a year and a half. That's an "unlikely search term". That's also one hell of a fluke - even a completely bogus page tends to pick up a few page views just from people clicking the "random page" button. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANMU[edit]

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

Article about a wrestling stable in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. All sources appear to be wrestling blogs and WP:BEFORE does not disclose WP:RS for this grouping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable MPJ-DK 23:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Preet (film)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable YouTube released film - no sign it could pass Wikipedia:Notability (films) or WP:GNG. Only reference is to a 1954 film and two of the few blue links are to dead people. KylieTastic (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles related to upcoming punjabi telifilm Amar Preet (film)is absolutely right,nothing wrong in this Articcles,Punjabi Telifilm 'Amar-Preet " is a upcoming movie,,releasing soon in this month March (2017) film is ready ,any body can see it now online the links of youtub is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekea5TfGlNM if anybody wants to more information about this movie he can quarie/ask from me.I knows all things about this movie Amar-Preet here is my email;sharmaragini072@gmail.com and here it is my face book link also ; https://www.facebook.com/santoshkumari.raginisharma with warm regards ..Santosh Kumari Ragini

Hi Santosh kumari Ragini just because the film exists is not good enough for Wikipedia - See Wikipedia:Notability (films) for the notability requirements. KylieTastic (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability and only reference provided is unrelated. Melcous (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Future film is meaningless until released, and press articles and references make it notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability at all Spiderone 12:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see how it can possibly pass WP:NFILM when practically all the actors aren't even notable themselves. Ajf773 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Morris (rugby league)[edit]

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

~~PROD removed with rationale: "Needs cleanup, not deletion. Additional content likely can be found", which is flawed as the player still fails WP:RLN. – skemcraig⊗ 19:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Moved to keep Skemcraig (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in either of the two professional leagues in England.Fleets (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - scored two vital tries for Wales in their World Cup win over Italy Fleets (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created too soon as the player is not notable and no guarantee that they ever will be. Mattlore (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He apparently played for Wales against Italy last year in a RLWC qualifying match. While this doesn't technically satisfy RLN, I think it is enough when combined with the fact that he is in a Super League squad. Mattlore (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual inclusion criteria for rugby players as with most are an absolute minimum, if a person does not even meet those we should never have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fleets. Appearing on a national team at an international competition is notable. South Nashua (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although he is yet to make an appearance in the Super League, he has indeed signed with a team that plays in the top tier of competition for rugby league in Europe. The signing seems to have been done fairly recently and he might make his debut soon enough. Add the fact that he has played an international match and scored two vital tries, be it at the qualifying stage, the person seems notable enough in my understanding. Though he does not precisely meet WP:RLN yet, it appears that he very soon might. I would like to give the article some time. It can always be nominated for deletion again if he does not play any more matches, which seems highly unlikely to me. — Yash^talk stalk 18:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – changing my !vote from delete as nom to speedy keep per the new information that has come to light during this Afd. Skemcraig (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. author agreement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie Poulsen[edit]

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

self-written vanity page sourced only to a press release, promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, nothing but self-published sources, even in Danish. --Drm310 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barriers to exit. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exit (economics)[edit]

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

Not an economic term (see Glossary of economics). Reference provided is an abstract which uses "exit" in quotes. Creator is blocked sockpuppet and major contributor was indef'ed for disruptive editing. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – perhaps a WP:BLAR to Exit strategy would work as an alternative to showing this article the door. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Exit is a fine economic term, for instance one of the theoretical conditions for a competitive market is cost-less exit and entry, so if there is a redirect, I'd recommend Barriers to exit. The age of the article makes me want to suggest redirect for history preservation, but the lack of interesting information in the history and the unlikeliness of this as a search term make me want to suggest delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Smmurphy to Barriers to exit and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Infusion. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infused water[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in RS. Much of the article is OR built on irrelevant sources (or is unsourced). A brief mention of infused water may be due in our Drinking water article but this is not viable as a standalone topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the person who is asking for the deletion of this topic, doesn't believe that any articles about alternative medicine should be present on Wikipedia. However there is an article about Ayurveda on Wikipedia, as there is one about doshas. Infused water is a concept of Ayurvedic medicine and is used to balance doshas and should be allowed to exist and being referred to from these articles. After discussing this topic with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN he did state that the article didn't need to be redirected into drinking water but needed to be worded neutrally and added with references to Ayurvedic medicine. Mira.peltomaki (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mira.peltomaki: Please read our guideline on assuming good faith and this essay on why "other stuff exists" tends not to be a good argument. Once you've seen those, you ought to respond to the concerns that have been raised rather than attacking others. Alexbrn is saying that the article doesn't have coverage in reliable sources and has lots of text that relies on original research. If those issues are accurate, the article ought to be deleted. If they're not, we need you to help clear up any confusion. City Of Silver 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I have read the guidelines, thank you. I believe I have adhered to. If not, please point out where I made a mistake. My 'attack' is based on the conversation I had with him in this topic, where he states Ayurveda is nonsense. Also please not that I did not write this article, it was already there. I just edited it.

@Mira.peltomaki: "It is clear that the person who is asking for the deletion of this topic, doesn't believe that any articles about alternative medicine should be present on Wikipedia." I strongly suggest you re-read the WP:AGF guideline because nobody who understands it would say something like that. (It's also obviously false since Alexbrn isn't nominating every single alternative medicine article for deletion.)

You've also cited the existence of other articles as precedent. That argument is not going to convince anyone and if you want to know why, re-read that essay. City Of Silver 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver: I hear what you say about the article existing not being a reason for it not being for deletion. Great, I am attempting to improve the article. This is what was quoted that makes me believe his stand on alternative medicine is pretty clear: I am aware of the background. Region-specific medicine is a hallmark of uselessness (think about it: if something worked it would spread pretty quickly to other regions). Ayurveda is pretty much entirely useless for medical purposes. If you want to insert claims about "infused water" into articles on Ayurveda, go ahead: just make sure the claims are backed by good sources and all should be well. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Besides this, he also removed all my edits to Ayurveda articles Ayurveda and dosha, which he claimed were wrong, or rather fluff, when in fact I corrected an ERROR and added more clarification in the article without if conflicting with any of the other sources.Mira.peltomaki (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mira.peltomaki: "This is what was quoted that makes me believe his stand on alternative medicine is pretty clear." So you've read WP:AGF but you're still saying things like this? Again, I really recommend you re-read that guideline because you've repeatedly shown you don't grasp what it's saying. And if you're right about the content here being enough to avoid deletion, you're really harming the article because you can't seem to fight for it without constantly attacking another editor's motives. City Of Silver 20:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - overlaps almost entirely with Enhanced water, infusion, and Herbal and fruit teas. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge contents to a section at Infusion. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note also we have an article Infusion that covers the more general topic of infusions and which might also be a host to a brief mention of flavoured water. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of these articles cover the alternative medicine, in this case Ayurveda, benefits nor the ongoing debate about the claims of infused water benefits from the health and fitness industry, which my addition to the article does point out. I have now added several ayurvedic medicine sources, if more is needed, I can do so.Mira.peltomaki (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with infusion and redirect to the relevant section there. Redirects are cheap and "infused water" has potential to be a commonly-entered term in the search box. City Of Silver 20:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Note to the overlappers above, this article also impinges on Squash (drink). -Roxy the dog. bark 20:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Squash is something completely different,it is a sweet concentrated liquid made from or flavoured with fruit juice, which is diluted to make a drink.Mira.peltomaki (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be quite a bit of WP:OR and the sources do not support this full article. There is also no clear merge/redirect target so I suggest a delete. If any content about "infusion water" has to be added, please consider adding it to one of the existing articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - too many unsubstantiated medical claims in the "benefits" section to merit merging. The title would appear to be a reasonable redirect to Infusion. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not clear that this is a distinct topic. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infusion. The extent of anything here that complies with core content policies it is already covered as User:Jytdog describes above. Core content is non-negotiable so the rest has no place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Infusion as suggested BY Eggishorn. Probably one to three sentences would be enough. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially, opinion is divided as to whether Kaur meets WP:BLP1E or not. The article has been improved with additional sources such as the Indian Express, which makes the earliest "Delete" votes problematic to judge. The most recent votes add little to the existing ground covered, so I think closing as "no consensus" (which defaults to keep) is the best option. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmehar Kaur[edit]

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

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

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

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

With due respect to Kaur, but i nominate this bio for deletion because I believe she is notable only for a single event and no other claims of notability thus falling under WP:BLP1E. --Saqib (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked her up on wikipedia to get context for this story: ^[1] - which I believe is a solid criterion to make someone notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:4D00:DC:9D10:ED2C:187B:20F4 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.altnews.in/wore-btch-rndi-postitute-indian-right-wings-response-gurmehar-kaur/

Keep. She was in notable newspapers earlier as well. Check this --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Are we going to create a biography of the fan who won a date with tennis star "Eugenie Bouchard"? Now this fan has also got international coverage. Similarly, this lady got coverage based on a twitter war about an YouTube video. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must Delete - This article violets policy WP:BLP1E related to article creation for biography notable only for single event. She is just a media sensation for now a days and she is not linked with any notable event that should be featured for article creation. The whole event might be created under the section of "2017 controversies in India" or "2017 Protest in India" as it was in 2016 JNU sedition controversy. सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, then you should merge Kanhaiya Kumar also into 2016 JNU sedition controversy -- Yohannvt (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing - Even Kanhaiya Kumar should be considered with the same cited above. Like in case of Gurmehar Kaur , we can not declare some one notable just because of her some posts on social media. The event is not significant nor the individual's role. She is not having any reputed designation or running any organization. She just relate with one event only. Her information should be merged in the specific event. Wikipedia is not news so any news notable biography should not be here. सुमित सिंह (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing Language of article is also not written in neutral point of view and comes under WP:ASSERT. How it can say that Virender Sehwag and others made fun on her. This article just following social media status and posts favoring specific person or community and not having real facts. सुमित सिंह (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@सुमित सिंह: User:6033CloudyRainbowTrail has fixed some issues in the article regarding neutrality. Online activism is also an important task nowadays.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has become really notable in the last couple of days & it cant be called a one-off incident or a single event. Check this link -- Yohannvt (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must keep Gurmehar Kaur has become really notable. see:in the news--Obaid Raza (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of the article has been significantly covered independently and personally by various reputed independent journalism houses. Article seems to look good minus the primary you tube links provided which i have removed in my contribution. There also no doubt should remain regarding merger as events and incidents do not take place into being until people related to it make it happen thus stand a crystal clear notability to have an article in main space. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. A clear case of WP:BLP1E and WP:REFFLOOD does not confer notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree. This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was in the headlines earlier as well. @सुमित सिंह: Online social activism is also a thing nowadays. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, let us try to accommodate all notable biographies.Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Satdeep Gill: Can you please explain why the subject was in news earlier? and also please feel free to link those sources here. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Notable sources like the Indian express have written about her in 2016 as well, check this. While now she is in the headlines for another campaign which is against ABVP. Although her previous activism is also being appreciated. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided above is what she is back in news these days, being a part of a campaign does not make one notable independently and she grabbed the attention because of her viral video and being trolled by some notable people. As per the recent news, she is not a part of the campaign anymore so I see it as a non-notable individual and believe this article should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Actually no, check this link. Now, she is in the news for her stand against the conflict at Ramjas College in Delhi. So, there are at least two different campaigns and a lot of coverage. One campaign was anti-war and this one concerns DU protests. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not almost but one and all coverage of this individual is related to a viral video. Per WP:BLP1E: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", "the event is not significant", "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." If Kaur starts getting press coverage unrelated to that Indo-Pak peace message video there's grounds for a full biography, but as it stands the article is just restating the news coverage and I don't see if the current event is notable itself that I can suggest a redirect. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check new news articles like this about her which prove that she is not notable for just the Indo-Pak video. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Satdeep Gill:: Let me clear it here that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies doesn't specify that the notability of a person can be determined merely on press coverage. I think having the concept of notability for a person on press coverage is dangerous. This may gives the control to news agencies so that they may establish notability of a person merely on the basis of writing pieces about that person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not News therefore merely being covered by news agencies does not simply establish notability, it establishes coverage, at least in my opinion. --Saqib (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: What i defened above is the fact that the person is not notable for just one event. The press converage was used to verify that. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single events dont pass WP:BLP1E. Though she may have participated in other anti war campaigns, those seem to have remained confined to her facebook wall and dont have any coverage in reliable media. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Indian express is a reliable source in India; check this article about her which was published in 2016. Now she is in the news for another campaign that concerns DU conflicts. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like today two points to Wikipedia; 1. Wikipedia is not a cheap news OR a medium of publicity stunt; Wikipedia is a dignity. 2. She is not a notable person, she is even not a knowing face and she is far away from activism. Ashwinikrk (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashwinikrk: That only is your opinion. This is indeed activism for me. BBC writing about her does not qualify as cheap news, at least for me. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: This is not WP:BLP1E. Check this news. This clearly proves that she is not just notable for the Indo-Pak video but also for her stand against ABVP. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I know, she recently came to limelight after she publicly spoke out against ABVP - and this led to her video resurfacing once again. It has led to controversy, but we don't know much about her other than that. King Cobra (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@6033CloudyRainbowTrail: Well her coverage in the news has already made her an activist. She is quite notable as far as i think. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, because though I treat people like this with some scepticism (i.e. notable for doing things on social media) she has undoubtedly received significant coverage since last year, not just in the last few days. I'm wondering whether some of the vehement 'delete' votes above are based on disliking her politics? Sionk (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: I don't think there's any political motivated deletion vote here. Being a Pakistani, I very much support this girl and her cause and of course would like to see a Wikipedia entry on her, but being an impartial Wikipedian, I nominated her bio for deletion because at the same time it's important to conform with Wikipedia policies. As long as she falls under WP:BLP1E, I don't think Wikipedia need a bio on her. --Saqib (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Sionk (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: If you look at the current news about her, it becomes clear that she does not fall under WP:BLP1E. She has become notable for at least two incidents. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib and GSS-1987: and others: have a look at this news in The Hindu. This does not even mention about her previous video but talks about the current issue, the Save DU campaign started by her.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 08:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it on the closing admin to decide whether to keep or delete this bio. Have we decide to go with keeping it, please don't forget to add the references you provided in this VfD to avoid the bio getting flagged again. --Saqib (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I was reading the Indian Express and an article today is especially devoted to challenging her ideas, so I needed to come here to look her up. The article needs a lot of improvement but it's clear that there are sources in the mainstream media. Alternatively, merge with a redirect, but where? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Lady Shri Ram College for Women. --Marvellous Spider-Man 18:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--Wikipedia is not a news-site.And a case of WP:BLP1E---putting out a viral video;trolled by some notable people and persons of prominence choosing sides-- hardly makes one notable.In the last year or so, India has seen a rise in student and intellectual activism.And with the accompanying hot-headedness of the political leaders and the very controversial nature of the topic under discussion--- these frequently snowballs into the national headlines--albeit temporally.But a fortnight or so after, these people magically vanish from any WP:RS coverage.And yeah, I don't buy, she was notable prior to the video surfaced out.As to some of the opposes, I fail to see any policy-based argument countering the issues raised specifically by the nom and GSS-1987.Winged Blades^Godric 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I have defended so many times that this article is not WP:BLP1E and the person is notable for more than one event. Defending "But a fortnight or so after", here are certain news reporting from 2016; one from July 2016, a popular website in May 2016, another news from May 2016 and then there has been coverage in tons of newspapers in February and March 2017.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually with some other article heading it may be a subject for q:wikiquote sister project ? , cause all it is about quips, Just I read a quip "This comment is not written by me, its written by my key board" :) ^[1]

Mahitgar (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.misalpav.com/comment/923588#comment-923588

Policy vs Hasten - Article has improved in compare of it was in early stage. But still bypassing many Wikipedia Policy as WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ASSERT, WP:RS. Wikipedia is not for making someone notable. If she is really becoming notable and doing acts , we should wait for some time. As I know she separate herself from the movement and clearly speak that she has nothing to do with all this now.^[1] For now we should keep wikipedia policies in mind. Rest of for the closing administrator. सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I am generally sympathetic to the BLP1E argument, this has been refuted by the presence of substantive sources from before the "single event" in question. Furthermore, there is such a thing as carrying an argument too far; and I am seeing approximately 2 MILLION news results for her name: even if you discount a large fraction of these as coming from other folks with the same name (I don't know how common a name this is), this leaves a huge volume of coverage. Furthermore, there are going to be at least as many news items in vernacular sources that we are missing here. So, keep. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a good case of WP:BIO1E. A review of the sources shows that the coverage is related to one event. Note that whether a person is known for one event is generally determined by whether significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.. In this case, it is abundantly clear that the significant coverage is focused on the event. (The coverage prior to this news spike is minimal. In addition, some of prior coverage is thebetterindia.com and newscrunch.in which are not reliable sources for the purpose of notability). Our WP:BIO1E requirements exist precisely so that we don't create WP:PSEUDO biographies on people. This unfortunately is one of the cases. I also agree with the explanation by User:Winged Blades of Godric, so it's a delete for me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ www.news30.in/news-now-till/gurmehr-kaur-separate-herself-from-campaign

@Lemongirl942: Even if you check current coverage only, it focuses on two different events. But Indian Express], a reliable source has also written about her in 2016. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 06:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and it seems there was at max 1 or 2 articles, both of which were human interested stories about the video. Every other coverage seems to be related to the current controversy. What we are trying to determine is does significant coverage exist only in the case of one event. In this case, yes. The 2 articles previously are not significant coverage. I looked through quite a lot of sources and all of this is related to a controversy about political clashes in University of Delhi. I would support an article about 2017 University of Delhi controversy and the content should ideally go there. However, I cannot support a BLP here as it is the event which is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article is much more developed than it was over the time. Yes, it does needs improvements. If you go through several media reports and consider them as a reliable source she does comes under WP:BLP. Thank You.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - I see plenty of sources added showing ongoing coverage for controversies. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage goes beyond one event. Hmlarson (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:BLP1E violation.WP:RS esp. media units cover numerous incidents in detailed manner.Hardly, all make way to WP!!Already the coverage in print media is spiking down.The main problem is nothing exists about her in media except about the video about a tender issue and the subsequent trolling which as a matter of fact is a common incident in today's India.202.142.107.74 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. This article was created for political propaganda of Indian politics. Delete according to WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Keep~~ - I have already added my comment earlier in the thread, but the article has really improved over the past few days.. So it should be definitely not deleted. Yohannvt (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck the above comment as the user has already commented Keep above. Now double keep comment after a few comments is not allowed. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment still stands, only the bolded part is invalid - don't be a jerk. I have fixed the striking. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the worse case it's WP:BLP1E and in the best case it's WP:TOOSOON. Heavy coverage, but all related to just one event. Coderzombie (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another possible vantage point we should consider that some of deletion votes submitted in the earlier listing may or may not be due to the dislike of the political stand took by the subject and vice-versa. Thus endangering the NPOV, as pointed by User:Sionk at 20:49 on 4 March 2017 (UTC). Again, subject of the article has been significantly covered independently and personally by various reputed independent journalism houses. Article seems to look good minus the primary you tube links provided which i have removed in my contribution. There also no doubt should remain regarding merger as events and incidents do not take place into being until people related to it make it happen thus stand a crystal clear notability to have an article in main space. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Also, articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 'Keep' to 'Comment' because you have already 'voted' earlier. Sionk (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vanamonde's rationale. Mar4d (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have utmost respect for her, but she is surely not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. I haven't looked at the sources, and have no opinion on her political position. But, the article itself makes it clear that she is only known for one event. Being known for one event only passes WP:GNG if the event itself is exceptional. This one is not. Narky Blert (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Huertas[edit]

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

Discounting the quality of the page, which is an unsourced advertisement machine translated from Spanish, this page fails notability as the player has not taken part in a professional game. Former PRODs were undone with the argument that he was notable by being in Barcelona's ranks but a) he never played professionally for them, thousands of kids have been in youth ranks of major teams and now work in different jobs and b) he's left Barcelona to sign permanently for an amateur team. Harambe Walks (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H H Brahmeshanandachary Swami[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I can find 0 google hits for "Brahmeshanandachary", and the article appears to be purely promotional (I think, I frankly have no idea what most of the article is trying to say). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, it looks promotional and I don't find any reliable sources about the subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur. No reliable sources (on my search) and a significantly promotional looking article. Nix it. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker benedict[edit]

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

Other than a single article that claims his is a public figure, I can't seem to find the level of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article required to back up that claim. The only mentions of him in reliable sources seem to involve his claims of being assaulted at a wild party that his father threw that got his father in legal trouble. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is be able to use a search engine other than google or correctly use google. If you use Facebooks search engine-with a much more up to date algorithm-you can see thousands of people discussing me writing. Additionally if you look up tucker h benedict on google the following is more clear.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=tucker%20benedict

also on google if you understand how to properly search using SEO tactics it comes right up

https://www.google.com/#q=tucker+benedict&start=10&* — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBenedict (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people here do know how to use a search engine and understand search results and Tucker you just don't meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO at this time, sorry. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1281856965184507&id=1036841469686059&substory_index=0

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=785288988307030&id=610045389164725&substory_index=0

I'm sorry you're absolutely incorrect.

I do see there has been local coverage of an unfortunate instance involving Tucker, but that would not be enough to confer notability, by our standards, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So thousands of people discussing the topic across various media platforms doesn't confer notability? You're personal feelings toward the matter are clouding your ability to read, without bias, the standards you claim to be yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBenedict (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tucker, people who may be discussing you on social media like Facebook doesn't confer notability, here. I ask you again to read the notability guidelines and understand what we mean here by a WP:Reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd specifically direct you to sections like WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFSOURCE as well as of course WP:COI. Editors are strongly discouraged when it comes to creating articles about themselves. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take your "job" on wikipedia a little less seriously. When media coverages catches up to millennial trends in a few months there's going to be a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBenedict (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If if happens in a few months, then that's fine. Wikipedia is supposed to be a lagging indicator of notability, and intentionally waits for the media to "catch up". There's no rush. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And see WP:CRYSTAL. If that ever does happen, someone other than you should create the article about you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. The COI doesn't help assure me that there's anything else to make this notable. South Nashua (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed, if something besides Facebook followers appears to notice, then maybe in the future the guidelines will be met. Until then, see Wikipedia:Too soon. W Nowicki (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chivato[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTESSAY. When run through Google translate, this seems to be a (likely copyvio) dictionary definition and an unsourced essay. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nomination describes, it is a dictionary definition plus essay about informants. It almost falls into A10 speedy deletion territory, since it does not add much that is not already covered at the informant article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wrong language qualifies for WP:SPEEDY, plus copyvio argument... double speedy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, non-English articles only qualify for WP:SPEEDY if they already exist at a foreign language Wikipedia. Otherwise, they would get a ((notenglish)) tag and be deleted or moved to the appropriate language Wikipedia after two weeks if not translated. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and no preeminent honours (he was only a NCAA conference 2nd team, not an NCAA Div I All-American, 1st or 2nd). Yosemiter (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if I read the external link correctly, he only played 4 games in the AHL? He did play 258 games in the ECHL. But no evidence he meets any of the criteria for league play or honours in WP:NHOCKEY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smyth[edit]

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

Drastically fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does indeed fail WP:NHOCKEY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Journeyman in the low-minors, without any distinction apparent or otherwise. No indication that he could meet the GNG, and there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY which he'd have passed. Not surprising that this is another of the many hundred NN articles created by Dolovis. Ravenswing 19:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Robertson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league (All-Star in the Southern Professional Hockey League has no inherent notability). Yosemiter (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the many hundreds of NN articles which fail both NHOCKEY and the GNG by Dolovis, in defiance of the criteria, and for which he was ultimately community banned from article creation. Ravenswing 20:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Falls (a mile) short of meeting NHOCKEY and not finding sources to meet GNG. There is apparently a 15 year old hockey player with the same name who gets more coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Ravenswing's point, I wonder if there is some way we can streamline deletion discussions of Dolovis-created hockey articles. Probably not, but it may be worth thinking about. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, let me know. I came across all of these when redirecting some of the IceGators links. I have found almost every SPHL-related player on the SPHL season pages are linked, created by Dolovis, and fail GNG/NHOCKEY. I just haven't gotten around to nominating them all yet. Yosemiter (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't bitey, I'd write WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT as a deletion essay. Part of the problem, granted, is that Dolovis wasn't always wrong. Some of his creations were notable, and some did meet NHOCKEY at the time. Ravenswing 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup the problem was, at the time alot of these were created they did meet NHOCKEY. It's just that the community then went and made NHOCKEY more stringent to avoid his creations. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Moore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources and drastically fails WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN journeyman in the mid- and low-minors with no distinction. No evidence he meets the WP:GNG. Ravenswing 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable low level hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Born of Osiris. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 18:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Heart Engraved These Messages[edit]

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

I am not finding reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Results of searches using ((Find sources)) are:

WP Reference comes up with an encyclopedia article with just a mention as a demo.
New York Times - nothing
HighBeam - nothing
Books - nothing
Newspapers - nothing
News - nothing
From the first link, I am finding blogs, sales sites, foreign sites, but am not finding independent, reliable sources, per WP:RS.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or add references - If this cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Born of Osiris. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you know ANYTHING about making music but when you're young, music doesn't get very far. This album was released on mySpace, as were all of their self-releases before becoming signed to Sumerian Records. It's on youTube in multiple instances. Nobody has the time to post BS music that isn't correct. It all points to make information being correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlastella8 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born of Osiris per nominator and Jax 0677's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born of Osiris. A band with multiple album articles might suggest a keep, but a closer look reveals they are all fairly obscure, and "great lost albums" from bands that go on to have huge success tend to get retrospectives in Billboard or Rolling Stone anyway (random example). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hauswirth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league or winning any significant awards (second team All-Star in a low-level league is insignificant to generate notable coverage). Yosemiter (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls short of WP:NHOCKEY and not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in the many hundreds of NN articles which fail both WP:NHOCKEY and the WP:GNG by Dolovis, in defiance of the criteria, and for which he was ultimately community banned from article creation. Ravenswing 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Ofukany[edit]

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

Drastically fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Nowhere near meets WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another NN article created by Dolovis in open defiance of NHOCKEY and the GNG, neither of which the subject has ever met. Ravenswing 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEVENTEEN Variety Show Appearances[edit]

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

Not notable fancruft list of guest appearances on weekly tv gameshows, poorly sourced (all sources are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources) Snowflake91 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 12:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mazel tov. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mazalozo / mazaloza[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page was transwiki'ed to wi, but they deemed it unsuitable for inclusion in mainspace and has been stashed on a talk page. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition unsuitable for Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Mazel tov (after splitting title here) Details of how the Hebrew term has been adopted by Judaeo-Spanish belongs in the article for Mazel tov, which already has details about the phrase and its adoption into Dutch, German, Hungarian, Polish and American English. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G7, author deleted page RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROC Maestro[edit]

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

This falls in the software crack, so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion - so here we are. This article has no real assertion of notability and no reliable sources, and in my searches I didn't turn up anything independent other than forum posts and entries in indiscriminate directories. This doesn't meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joris Minne (food critic)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG 3 of the sources are self-published and the 4th is about the company. Nothing in-depth and nothing reliable and nothing independent. Domdeparis (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian general election, 2018[edit]

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

This article is predicting the future (WP:CRYSTAL). The article in portuguese has been deleted for this reason. Holy Goo (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nominator needs to familiarise themselves with WP:CRYSTAL as it specifically allows articles like this: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 (2nd nomination), which was similarly nominated in error a few days ago. Number 5 7 14:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL/Number 57. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CRYSTAL and its clear statement on the matter: "Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election..." (italics added). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General elections in sovereign countries (including future ones) are notable and this one is confirmed to be occurring as specified in the articles title and relevant sources. Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I already explained in Talk:Brazilian general election, 2018. The deletion of the article at pt wikipedia was not even following the policies of pt wikipedia, so it is pointless as a justification. In fact, perhaps someone fluent in portuguese should ask the undeletion of that article at that project. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Snow close per above. MB298 (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above. AusLondonder (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as per everyone. J 947 07:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of the above. Mélencron (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of queens consort and concubines of King Mongkut[edit]

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

5 items in multiple issues, hasn't gotten any attention since then, and doesn't meet WP:N: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article", search Google, the only items are links back to this article, and appears to be a WP:DUPLICATE of List of Thai royal consorts#Chakri Dynasty ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928^Talk 13:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, no sources listed and a paucity of blue links. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster beard[edit]

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

Per TonyBallioni's previous attempt, this could be redirected to Hipster (contemporary subculture) and added there with proper sourcing but as of right now this is a largely unsourced essay and not encyclopedic. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Article blanked by author, can be recreated if deemed to be a plausible redirect. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut[edit]

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

Do we need to have an article for Donnie Darko and for Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut? They are the same movie. Also, worth noting, one user is responsible for the majority of the article content and edits(85% of the edits) - possibly because all other users are on the Donnie Darko article? Kellymoat (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut had its own international release, its own budget, its own theatrical release poster, its own screening at an international film festival. It has its own pages on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo, and two different home media releases (10 years apart). Its production and release were reported on by the likes of USA Today, The Guardian, Indiewire, AlterNet, and various other sources. Reviews at the time came from Roger Ebert, the BBC, The Village Voice, plus others. In all of these sources, it's the director's cut that's the primary subject, not the original film. This all suggests to me that the director's cut is notable (independent of the original film), meets WP:GNG, and that therefore this article should be kept.

Also, this article is bigger in terms of raw byte count and almost as big in terms of prose than the article on the original film, so I don't see how it could easily be merged. It's also a good article (not that that should make it in any way above reproach). Additionally, I fail to see how having just one user being responsible for the majority of the article content and edits speaks to the subject's notability. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donnie Darko. Sorry but no, director's cuts are not "new" movies, they are just a variation of the original. This article is a lot of verbose padding that could be condensed to a paragraph at the actual movie article. ValarianB (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being "a variation of the original" precludes a subject from meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM when there are sufficient sources on it. I've explained above why I think the article meets the GNG – which part of the argument do you disagree with? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, GNG doesn't apply when there are separate guidelines for the subject type - such as movies and music.

But, more importantly, we aren't talking about a sequel like Rocky and Rocky II. Nor are we talking about a remake like Halloween(1978) and Halloween (2007). We are talking about the same film with a couple minutes of additional footage that wasn't used the first time and some of the previous footage being shifted around to different parts of the movie. In music we call that a "remix". They don't get separate articles. They get a paragraph or two in the original.Kellymoat (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead of WP:NFILM: "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow." Later on in the guideline, it describes the subsequent criteria as being "additional" to the GNG. I'm not seeing anywhere where it says that they supersede or replace the GNG, or that it any way "doesn't apply". I also can't see anywhere where it says that director's cuts "don't get separate articles". I'm not hearing any policy-based reason that the article should be deleted. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've dropped a note at the Film Project about this AfD. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why the hell would we what to give our readers less information by a merge? Trout time! Moxy (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stand-alone article because there is ample information about this distinct cut. As A Thousand Doors said, this version of the film has its own Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo web pages. Not all director's cuts are equal in substance. Some may warrant a single sentence in the main film article's "Home media" section. Some may warrant a stand-alone section within the main film article. Some may be substantial enough for their own article. This article is detailed and well-sourced to warrant standing alone. I see no reason for deletion. A case could be made for merging, but I would not favor that due to the level of good detail and would not mind seeing a similar approach to other directors' cuts if there is a similar abundance in coverage (e.g., Kingdom of Heaven). The only thing I would suggest is stronger clarification throughout in establishing that this is a director's cut that followed the initial theatrical cut. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes the level of detail justifies a sub-article because it would overwhelm the main article. It is not unusal for soundtracks to be spun off into their own sub-article (see La La Land (soundtrack) for example) despite being only a single component of the film. Another example that springs to mind is Versions of Blade Runner. Clearly in this case merging the articles would result in half the article discussing a different version of the film. Having two separate articles seems like a more organic and less confusing way of dealing with the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep The Director's cut is notable on its own (several of its own reception bits), and the added content here does have a home on WP, so deletion of contributions makes zero sense nor is appropriate. The question becomes if the director's cut should have been spun of the main article due to size issues, and to that, I don't think there was a size issue that required this spinout, so this should be merged back into that article, having a new H2 section for the direction's cut. It doesn't hurt to keep the separate article but it really works better merged. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles were merged they would only be about 60k, and most GA/FA film articles fall in the 50-100k range so there isn't a size issue IMO. The issue is more structural: the content clearly can't be squeezed into a single section in the main article, so we'd end up with effectively two articles spliced together: a section for the plot and the section for the alterations to the plot; a section for the original release and a section for the second release; a section for the original reception and a section for the special edition reception and so on. It would be a confusing mash-up. The current solution looks much cleaner to me. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is a problem how? Many of the details of the director's cut extend from ideas off the released film, so that with the director's cut section immediately following the released version, there's narrative flow. Having it separate, you have to reintroduce those ideas to some extent as to create a comprehensive article (eg one that stands along from the release). I really don't see this as an issue against a merge. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The background section can be scrubbed, but everything else is distinct from the main article. Are you advocating condensing the information in the article into a single section per Titanic_(1997_film)#3D_conversion? It seems to me that approach would result in a substantial loss of relevant content and I am reluctant to pare down a GA rated article to single section in another article. Or are you advocating folding in each section, so we'd have the plot changes in the plot section, the reception information in the reception section and so on? I can't support a "merge" unless I know precisely what that entails. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per section, that is "Plot" would have the base plot, and then a "director's cut changes" subsection. This is a format I used at The Stanley Parable for example --MASEM (t) 21:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the Director's Cut is the notable subject, and is also a good article - would you rather that we delete/merge/redirect Donnie Darko?Kellymoat (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a false dichotomy. They can both be notable. It would be very weird to delete/merge/redirect a film's page in favour of a later version of itself, but it would also be strange to take a GA-class article about that version and shoehorn it into the main article, if it would make it excessively long, or disjointed, or for other reasons would be unhelpful to our readers. There's no premium on Wikipedia's article count so we should arrange the information as best suits them. In this case, two articles seem more helpful than one. Mortee (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Mailov[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:NKICK). All the coverage is simply routine sports reporting and he's not in any independent rankings I can find. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Aldous[edit]

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

Non-notable bio. Fails WP:GNG. sources are the subjects own web sites, 1 source is simply proof that she has an MBE (which does not prouve notability (nearly 1,500 awarded each year) and the 4 source is local news coverage of the festival that she founded but she is just mentioned in the caption of the photo. Notability is not inherited. This seems like a vanity piece. Domdeparis (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely any evidence of notability, and the article smells strongly of promotion (if not indeed of paid editing). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was proposed for deletion (prod process) by user:Winged Blades of Godric near simultaneously to it being nominated here. SpinningSpark 13:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity article fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genourob[edit]

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

None of the sources prouve notability (2 are published by the founder of the company and the 3rd mentions one of the products as the tool used for the study). Fails WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the page creator copied from talk page

Founder or not, the study has been done by an official orthopaedic surgeon. In addition, the study is present on a recognized medical website source, the ncbi which attests of this medical device for ACL analysis and diagnosis. No fake information is written here. There is no page on wikipedia dedicated to arthrometers, thus the reason I wrote it on this page.

Yesterday, I admit having wrote an article about Genourob being turned in a marketing way, but here I made sure that my writings remained written in a way qualified as informative and that they were supported by reliable scientific sources in order to respect wikipedia's policies.

Besides, after having made a research concerning what website were recognized by wikipedia to correctly reference my writings, I found out that the ncbi website is as a matter of fact a reliable source.

Further to your message, I added more sources to prove my point.

Reply Hi @Yves1907: first of all please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ it automatically adds your signature. Secondly the article is about the company and the sources must show the notability of the company and be in-depth, the sources do not talk about the company but simply mention some of its products please read WP:INHERITORG. Please read WP:ORGCRITE and you will see that A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

None of your sources talk about the company. You are a long way from proving notability for this company. Domdeparis (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi @Domdeparis:, thank you for your message. Further to your suggestion, I added more sources that I think are secondary. They show a prize won by genourob and an involvement with an company in the US. Is that enough for the Genourob to have a page?

Yves1907 Yves1907

Reply Please sign your comments using one of the 2 buttons with the 4 ~ s. I'm sorry but the second source is about another company that distributes one of the products and does not mention this company so this is far from being sufficient. The other one is more of the kind of thing that is needed but it is not sufficient in my opinion so I am not willing to withdraw the nomination. It would have been better to submit your draft for consideration before publishing this article. If what you want to do is write about arthrometers that would certainly be a very useful and interesting article but it must not be a promotional article for the product mentioned. From the way that you editing I presume that you have some link to the company it may be useful to read this WP:COI Domdeparis (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be paid for spam. Does not appear to be notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete medical device spam. "the study has been done by an official orthopaedic surgeon" doesn't mean anything when it is a primary source. - Brianhe (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joris Minne (PR consultant)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG article already deleted once as a speedy and immediately recreated by a possible COI editor (same user name as subject) Domdeparis (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Go On (podcast)[edit]

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

No claim of notability, no reliable sources to demonstrate notability either. Google search showed virtually no independent sites mentioning this podcast. Cahk (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address the issue of notability, I included a link to the itunes charts of Britain and Australia on the page: http://www.itunescharts.net/artists/podcast/matt-stewart-jess-perkins-dave-warneke/podcasts/do-go-on/ Additionally, the Do Go On podcast is included here, in a Melbourne Comedy Festival booking website: https://www.trybooking.com/book/event?eid=252377 Both of these sources are in the page's references list. Finally, in you click the link to the talk page, I go more in depth into this discussion. I wrote it before I read your comment, so not all of it may apply (mostly I want to know why this is nominated for deletion but not other, shorter and less relevant, articles)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls well short of WP:GNG. Web search revealed no further sources which would support a claim of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Harder[edit]

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

One of three articles under discussion at WP:COIN [here] for details, but sourcing is basically non-existent. Roxy the dog. bark 08:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just isn't the coverage to support any kind of notability here:

Four hits on Google News, of which three are press-releases and one doesn't mention him at all.
No hits at all on Highbeam, JSTOR, Google newspapers.
47 hits on Google Books, of which almost all are false positives. There's a brief mention and a quote in this book from 2003. As has been pointed out at WP:COIN, this book, which I had added to the page as a reference, copies substantially from Wikipedia; I've removed it from the article.

The long history of relentless self-promotion here, going back at least to 2006, is not in itself an argument for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. As noted, sourcing is an issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing on Gnews beyond a few company issued press releases. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is basically nothing written about him that is not written by him (including his own Wikipedia article [9] [10]) or that is a Wikipedia mirror. I've done an extensive search (also in languages other than English) and also have access to the HighBeam archives—nothing. The references contain a 2002 article allegedly about him in Norwegian. It is not online and there's no way to verify its contents or whether they pertain to Harder at all. In any case, that is not sufficient to pass GNG. The only claim to fame for both him and Fashion Net which he founded is that it was allegedly the first internet fashion site. The only reference for this is to the book Fashion Technology: Today and Tomorrow. However, that book plagiarised verbatim from the 2006 version of the WP article Fashion, including the claim which had been originally added by a COI editor [11]. The other two articles related to Harder (Fashion Net, and Lumière (magazine)) are also at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lumière (magazine)[edit]

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

One of three articles under discussion at WP:COIN [here] for details, but sourcing is basically non-existent. Roxy the dog. bark 08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I've done an extensive search (also in languages other than English) and have access to the HighBeam archives, and have found nothing but brief mentions in lists of fashion sites in articles from the late 1990s. There is nothing in reliable sources devoted to or significantly covering this internet magazine, which ceased sometime around 2004, was "revived" back in 2012, produced two issues and has been defunct ever since. It was nominated for a Webby Award in 1999 and 2002, but was not a winner either time. I don't think that's enough to overcome the complete lack of significant or in-depth coverage. Note also that the artiicle claims the magazine "was included" in an exhibition at the Cooper-Hewitt. The link in the ref is dead and cannot be recovered (It appears to have been simply an image of the exhibition announcement.) In any case, the catalog is on Google Books and there is no mention of Lumière in it [12]. This is one of a suite of articles which are all up for deletion. The other two are Stig Harder (who founded Lumière) and Fashion Net (also founded by Harder). Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Net[edit]

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

One of three articles under discussion at WP:COIN [here] for details, but sourcing is basically non-existent. Roxy the dog. bark 08:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails the notability criteria I've done an extensive search (also in languages other than English) and have access to the HighBeam archives, and have found nothing better than what is already there—brief mentions in lists of fashion sites in articles from 1995 and 2002. There is nothing in reliable sources devoted to or significantly covering this website. The only claim to fame for Fashion Net is that it was allegedly the first internet fashion site referenced to the book Fashion Technology: Today and Tomorrow, a "textbook" published in India. If you look at the book (first published in 2007), you will find large verbatim chunks from the October 2006 version of Fashion, including the verbatim assertion "Fashion made its debut on the world wide web in January 1995 with the launch of Fashion Net by Stig Harder in Paris, France." (That sentence was added by a COI editor in June 2006 with this edit.) So, we don't even have a reliable source for the one claim that might confer notability in the absence of significant coverage. The other two articles related to this website (Stig Harder, the founder of Fashion Net, and Lumière (magazine), also launched by Harder) are also at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T. M. Lotha. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T.M. Lotha[edit]

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

Reason HUSSS 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is already there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._M._Lotha

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:G7 which is the procedure that should be followed if you create duplicate articles in the future. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo Bus 37 (Nydalen T-Helsfyr T)[edit]

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

Non notable bus route (fails WP:GNG) and WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons:

Speedy Delete both - Qualifies for CSD A7, as there are no sources provided on either articles Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afolabi Timothy[edit]

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

An article on an amateur player that does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly rules out youth football as a source of notability, and he does not meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:USUAL may apply as well, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment - would the Nigeria Football Federation Cup be considered professional? I know the top division of Nigerian football is considered professional per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. However I am still leaning twords delete as Afolabi Timothy plays in the third division (not professional). Also according to the article he got injured before he could play any competitive matches at youth level. As per UltraExactZZ's comment the article can always be recreated in the future if and when subject meets the notability requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFOOTBALL KylieTastic (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amateur football players have to pass the GNG, which Timothy does not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian New Zealanders[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. a very small migrant group to NZ. unless they have done something all the article really states is there are 8,600 of them. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not a significant migrant group and certainly a lack of notable persons who fit this category. Ajf773 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pune to Mumbai Trains[edit]

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a train timetable Ajf773 (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTTIMETABLE either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Redrose. The article in its current state is just a timetable and Wikipedia is not a timetable. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a timetable and/or attempt at a travel guide, neither of which is an encyclopedia article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 12:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kim Jong-nam. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 19:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Đoàn Thị Hương[edit]

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

The article is about a person accused of taking part in a crime, but not so far found guilty. An article about the crime itself would make sense, but not one about this person as an individual, as the sources discuss her only in relation to the crime. She is not notable for other reasons. WP:BLP1E. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 10:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 10:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 10:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Support~~ I thin the nominator explained it really well, I also think that the article fails WP:CBALL. Could possibly be merged into an article of the actual event if it is ever started but there is not much to merge at this point. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I guess I was hinting at it in my initial vote but per the two votes bellow I've decided to change my input to a redirect. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Kim Jong-nam I created the article as a redirect - it was never intended to be an article on its own. --— Chevvin 20:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I initially looked for Doan Thi Huong and finding it missing, I noticed the Vietnamese version vi:Đoàn Thị Hương appeared to have had significant work / curation (assuming they follow WP:BLP) and is the top Google hit - we should try to keep the information in both languages in sync. (Reminder - both accented and ASCII Đoàn Thị Hương should do the same thing.) Should we tag the Kim Jong-nam page somehow to request bilingual volunteers on both sides? —Hobart (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's a plausible search term--why would we delete it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy to accept a redirect if other users believe outright deletion is not appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect However I think it would be in our best interests to preserve the text of both this and Siti Aisyah as a subsection in the assassination page, rather than just simply blanking both pages and only leaving redirects. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Van Loon[edit]

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

PROD contested cause apparently he meets WP:NFOOTY. I don't see how he does though, for what? The contester didn't say. Also fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has never managed a senior national team or a club in a fully pro league, and he does not meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As with similar noms, WP:USUAL caveats apply if their career takes off. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom and earlier comments. Clearly not notable. Qed237 (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above, especially UltraExactZZ's comment. Article can always be recreated if and when subject meets requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chawin Likitcharoenpong[edit]

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

Unremarkable person; prod and speedy declined. —S Marshall T/C 17:29, 14 February 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 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO and nothing convincing our basic policies based on search results. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received plenty of coverage in the Thai press, satisfying the GNG. E.g., Thai Rath[13], Kom Chad Luek[14], Nation TV [15], Siam Dara [16] and Dara Daily[17]. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is hard for me because I don't speak Thai. I must say that the general look and feel of those sites doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they get the kind of careful editorial supervision and scrupulous fact-checking we'd normally look for in the BLP of a teenager. But Thai sources may look different from English ones (and indeed why would they look the same?) What I'm really looking for is your assurance that these are the Thai equivalents of The Times and The Guardian, rather than the Thai equivalents of Hello Magazine and the Daily Mail.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't honestly make that assurance. Though Thai Rath is the country's top-circulating daily (and Kom Chad Luek is similarly positioned), the quality of their reporting isn't that highly regarded, and entertainment journalism in Thailand generally doesn't hold itself to high standards anyway (though they're not quite near Western tabloids' level of trashiness). I couldn't find anything in the Bangkok Post or The Nation, so I understand your position. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Diabetes Duo: Captain Glucose and Meter Boy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded by User:MatthewHoobin with the rationale "No indication of notability; the references cited here are few and appear unreliable, and a Google search doesn't turn up much better results in terms of verifiable sources."

Taking it here as this was previously discussed at AFD. I concur with the PROD rationale. — Train2104 (t • c) 06:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this makes no sense as Captain Glucose and Meter Boy and the Diabetes Hero Squad are an internationally and world renowned entity. A simple google search and the citations listed confirm that. Obviously whoever tagged this for deletion has little understanding about the worldwide diabetes community. IMO, deleting this would be wiki's loss as you will be removing a notable and charitable diabetes resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljtwo (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carljtwo: If you believe that the subject of this article is notable, please provide links to reliable, third-party resources that discuss it beyond a brief mention or inclusion in a list. The notability of the subject needs to be proved through pointing to resources rather than appealing to "wiki's loss", which is a very weak argument. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. The argument for keeping seems to amount to WP:ILIKEIT and I have to say, I'm involved in "the diabetes community" and I've never heard of them. Maybe they're not as world-renown as suggested. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it is more leaning towards keep. Due to the low level of participation, I am closing this as "no consensus" since it has been relisted thrice already. No prejudice against a renomination. However, I would advice any future nominator to explain why they feel the sources listed on the article are not significant enough to avoid a similar situation. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Paul[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not appear to be notable, and the article is written like an ad for them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article really isn't "overly" promotional, it just uses some business buzzwords, but more importantly I think there's enough coverage to establish notability: The Economic Times, Forbes and Business Standard seem reliable enough to me. Pishcal (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pishcal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pishcal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The nominator either does understand the mainline news sources/references in India or on a AFD spree involving subjects from India. The article is well referenced and the subject is notable. -- Tinu Cherian - 23:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Shoob[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable radio DJ, Fails NRADIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect but the prev AFDs aren't worth looking at - Both were in 2006 and neither cited policies nor sources. –Davey2010^Talk 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio figure. The article is also overly promotional trying to spin the person's impact as being as large as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there's a potentially valid notability claim here as the host of a program that appears to be syndicated to a network of radio stations rather than appearing on just one station in one market, what isn't present is the depth of reliable sourcing needed to clear WP:GNG for it. Of the two sources cited here, one is a deadlinked primary source of her former staff profile on the website of her own former employer, and the other one is a brief blurb in a radio industry trade publication — which means the second source would be a valid one for confirmation of stray facts after GNG had been covered off, but is not a source that can bring the GNG in its own right, and the first source counts for all of exactly nothing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kolm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:AUTHOR . No notable publications. No major awards LibStar (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did find this award [18], but I am not familiar with it, and can't say off the bat if it is significant. Some coverage and reviews have me leaning towards keep, but still somewhat on the fence. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (I suppose this helps), [24]. Yvarta (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the level of coverage is not high enough to justify an article on this writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in sources such as Suburban Ambush: Downtown Writing and the Fiction of Insurgency, Concise Companion to Postwar American Literature and Culture and Up is Up, But So is Down: New York's Downtown Literary Scene, 1974-1992. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is this indepth coverage? LibStar (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BankerBay[edit]

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

Plenty of money here but a great lack of reliable independent references. All the current refs appear to be derived from press releases, often with niche publishers. I could see nothing here that gave any confidence that WP:GNG was met Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear company webhosting sourced by only PR announcements and similar, none of which is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All current references are press releases or interviews with company representatives. Doesn't pass WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO applies. CBS527^Talk 14:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Saccone[edit]

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

Non-notable person. WP:GNG not met, Youtube channel does not meet WP:NWEB Exemplo347 (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently part of a little WP:Walled garden created by SPA User:CalebBenjamin012. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Joly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ward_Churchill#Writing. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifism as Pathology[edit]

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

Odd little page. Found it via link from publisher's page. Page is about an article written in 1986 and published as a slender book in 1998 by Arbeiter Ring Publishing when the author, Ward Churchill had gained attention as a political activist. Page created in 2006, when Churchill was at the center of a brief tempest in the academic teapot. I brought it here instead proposing a merger because Churchill is controversial. I thought that the question of whether to merge or delete this brief article should be discussed by a wider range of editors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ward_Churchill#Writing, where it is already covered. Redirection is preferable to deletion, and the page history is available for anyone who wants it. The book is not widely held or reviewed. czar 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As user:Czar suggests. No indication of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Bradford (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-Notable bio fails WP:GNG. Person has only marginal notability, all of it related to history at Novell as a low level executive who was dismissed from the company. Should be deleted as per WP:PLUG as advertisement. No good secondary sources. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bradford may well have been influential enough in the development of Novell to be notable at some level. However we lack reliable sources that demonstrate that, so we can not keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madtown (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, fails WP:NFILM the sources provided concern the pre release; I could find no reviews anywhere. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing on it. Looks like the film hasn't been released despite the article saying it was a 2016 film. Domdeparis (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fails WP:NFF --Domdeparis (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this piece is talking about the shooting in the past tense, shows a picture from production, and is from just before the film premiered, then WP:NFF clearly does not apply. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NatGertler: NFF clearly does apply because it covers films that haven't been distributed yet and this film is looking for a buyer. It states;

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Domdeparis (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been generally distributed yet, but film festival showings are a form of public theatrical release; it has been available for the public to see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Festivals are not public theatrical releases they are private events to which you can buy tickets but they are often an invitation only event such as Cannes or Berlin. Films are often shown in festivals to find buyers so they can be publicly released this obviously didn't happen here as they are doing the rounds of more festivals to try and find a buyer. There were 192 feature films presented during the festival in Cleveland. There are no reviews that I could find about this film...I don't know how many people saw it in the festivals over the last year but there wasn't a single critic that felt it necessary to talk about it...so in short this film is clearly undistributed and NFF clearly applies and even if it didn't it fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the general notability point, merely the NFF. While there are festivals that are invitation-only, CIFF is not among them, as can be seen at the membership page for the group that runs it, which tells you that an advantage of membership is you can get tickets before they go on general sale. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't take this the wrong way but I think you're splitting hairs to try and prove a point. NFF is for undistributed films as it clearly says at the top of the section and this film is looking for a buyer to be distributed. Look up the term film distribution and you'll probably get why I am saying that NFF applies here. I'm going to drop the subject now as I have no idea how to be any clearer than that. Domdeparis (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indie film shown at Cleveland film fest, no distribution. Some minor coverage in RSes. No full film critic reviews. Gab4gab (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japan-exclusive video games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First off, the title of this article is misleading, since the list criteria which have been in the article since its creation in January 2006 have little to do with which countries the games have been released in. Per those criteria, the title should be "List of Japanese language video games with at least one version that has no official English language release". In other words:

Games which are Japan-exclusive but are in English (yes, there are a considerable number of such games) do not qualify for this list
Games which have been released in many countries but not in English do qualify for the list
Games which have been released in English but had one version which was not in English (e.g. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Dark Seed II, Grandia) do qualify for the list

Obviously the discrepancy between the title and the criteria can easily be fixed, either by changing the criteria or moving the article. However, whether you go by the title or the stated criteria, the list is far too broad in scope to ever come close to being comprehensive. This issue was brought up in the original AfD, which was closed as no consensus, and was not addressed by any of those who voted keep. All five of the "keep" votes provided no justification beyond vague assertions that the article can be improved, which just leads to the question: How can it possibly be improved? The inclusion criteria are too arbitrary and ill-defined to have been discussed in notable sources, so there's no reason to think that this article could one day have something more than original research. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what its worth, if this happens to be kept again, the article isn't very actively maintained, so you could probably alter the inclusion criteria without much resistance. (And if there was resistance, you could contact the very active WP:VG for assistance on consensus building.) I just thought I'd throw that out there, considering how many of your qualms seem to be focused around the article's current inclusion criteria. The article could possibly be reshaped into something that makes a bit more sense. (Not that I'm defending the article, I'm currently undecided.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood me; I was discussing the inclusion criteria solely so that anyone viewing this AfD will understand exactly what the article I'm proposing to delete is, since the article title is misleading on that point. My reasons for wanting it deleted are its overly broad scope and lack of potential for sourced content.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I agree that the subject of the list is far, far too broad in scope to ever be comprehensive. A quick look at the number of entries in Category:Japan-exclusive video games shows just how many games this list would need to contain to be comprehensive. The existence of this category also makes this list somewhat unnecessary as a navigation tool, as the category can be used for the same purpose. There is also the issue that, as this list contain zero reliable source, the entire lead in and the arbitrary labeling of some of the games on the list as "import classics" is complete OR. While this list could be potentially completely reworked, have some reliable sources brought it to support its information, and have its inclusion criteria redefined into something that makes sense, that would essentially mean rebuilding the entire list from the ground up. And considering what poor shape this list has been in for years, if that was something that was desirable, it would be far easier to delete this one, and create an entirely new article in its place, rather than keep this mess around with the hope that somebody will fix it someday. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list like this is incredibly unwieldy and hard to maintain. I think what the title suggests, is that there are some game released just for the Japanese market. I think that borders on WP:EXISTS and/or WP:OR, because we're the ones pointing to the exclusivity in Japan. It would need a parent article, like Japanese exclusive video game before such a list can happen. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this list were ever correctly filled out, there would be tens of thousands of entries. Japanese-only releases are better tracked on a smaller scale, which they already are in a more accurate manner, by platform. (For example, see List of PlayStation Vita games or List of PlayStation 4 games, which have columns that show which games are released in which regions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE if properly maintained with WP:LISTN-compatible criteria. As it is now, it is completely WP:OR with its inclusion criteria as there do not appear to be any reliable sources that group it this way. Redundant to other lists as well, like per-platform ones. No primary topic to warrant a separate list article either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Krishnan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable author/actor/director. Fails WP:GNG. All his sources are either self published or blogspot pages. Jupitus Smart 16:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 15 February 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 07:15, 15 February 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 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources are unreliable and should hold very little (if any) weight. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Benny[edit]

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

Non notable actor/cricketer. Fails WP:GNG. Has appeared in a few movies in minor roles just so as to become eligible to play in the Celebrity Cricket League. Jupitus Smart 16:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 15 February 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 07:15, 15 February 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 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Currently, he's TOOSOON for a non-notable actor. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Candy[edit]

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

Delete. Promotional material. Highly questionable re notability. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional content for a private company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece, without notability; per WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reference meets the criteria in WP:RS and most are primary promotional pieces. Fails WP:CORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uni-ball. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UniBall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be a notable video game; a search for references failed to find any significant reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Looks non-notable to me. A redirect to Uni-ball would probably be useful here though. Raymie (t • c) 07:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The VG/RS search drags up 0 hits of worth. Fails the WP:GNG test -- Delete. Subsequently redirect per Raymie. --Izno (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - As suggested by Raymie. Interestingly enough, though the article states "released in 1999. This game is one of longest running independant games on the internet.", all the sources I've found say that the game was released just a couple weeks ago. Incidentally, none of those sources have anything on the game beyond title/platform/release date, so no help there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as delete, noting that there are three socks in this discussion. Throwing them out leaves a clear consensus to delete and salt Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Taee[edit]

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

Promotional biography that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources and was declined at AfC by SwisterTwister. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Non-notable & obviously promotional biography. I cannot see any significant change since it was declined at AfC. Delete. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the weakness of the sourcing, I'm not even seeing much of a claim to significance. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a number of changes since deletion at AfC, including significant removal of previous content and further referencing. As I understand things, unless a nominator is sure an article does not meet criteria, they should refrain from nominating them. Please advise steps to improve article. Dialbox2016 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — Dialbox2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not agree. This article should not be deleted. It demonstrates sufficient notability since it was last declined at Afc, does not demonstrate conflict of interest or bias and demonstrates notable links to other pages ie. Wikipedia page: Bishopgate School - Andrew Taee for the articles inclusion to be justified. Gobbledegoop21 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)— Gobbledegoop21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I have moved the AFC submission tags included by the above editors to the talk page for clarity. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, the COI creator of this article has removed negative sourced information and added non-encyclopedic vanity information. Oddly enough a new user who has never edited before has arrived to !vote keep. I strongly suggest salting this subject as the creators and the various SPA editors refuse to respect or do not understand the AfC process. Domdeparis (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator can not assume that I have any COI without appropriate demonstration. I am merely commenting on an article, which is my right to do, that I believe demonstrates an individual of notability and persons of similar experience and factual content have been approved. Once again, I am perfectly entitled to make my opinion on the page known without accusations being thrown at me. Therefore I believe that this article, if need be with further improvement, should remain in place. Gobbledegoop21 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Gobbledegoop21: you seem to be a bit confused by my remark (and BTW I am not the nominator). I said the creator of the article has a COI as he has declared working for Dial partners which was founded by Taee, this is not wrong at all just difficult to manage and discouraged. I think you do not understand the Wikipedia definition of COI and it would help you to read WP:COI. Your user account was created very recently and for the moment is a single purpose account and once again this is not wrong so there is no accusation being made but this is the only article on which you have worked. I am not accusing you of being a WP:SOCKPUPPET or a WP:MEATPUPPET but I would suggest you click on the 2 links to understand what they are. The opinion of an editor that votes to keep an article just after his account was created and makes no edits outside of this deletion discussion is less likely to be taken into consideration with the same weight as another editor that is not limited to the subject in question but you are 100% right you are entitled to make your opinion on this page ...or any other for that matter but please don't be surprised or offended if it is not followed, this is not a vote but a discussion so 1 delete comment which is well presented will always be taken more seriously than any number of keep comments from SPA editors unless their arguments are valid. Domdeparis (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a vanity sight where one can use their resources directly to create an article, and even more so attempting to control what is and is not said in an article on oneself is not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article demonstrates an individual of notability, demonstrates a 35 year career in Corporate Finance and charity work. The article also includes negative experiences, for example being removed as CEO of Crestacare. A self promoting article would not include information of this sort. Therefore I recommend that this article not be deleted. Bolton 28 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)— Bolton 28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the sources do not support notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Luke Girgis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant promotion for non notable manager/executive. Lacks coverage about himself in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from those he has managed.
This is one of two articles on this individual (other being Coptic Soldier). This was was created specifically to push their current projects, not as an encyclopedia article about the person.
Current borbardment of sources is:

Press Release. Him talking about himself
PR about a company, not Girgis
minor variation of above PR about a company, not Girgis
minor variation of above PR about a company, not Girgis
About the band, not Girgis. Betrays a promotional intent in the Wikipedia article as Grigis is a co-manager.
About Giertz, not Girgis. Only passing mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
Not an independent source.
Just his name on a list. Does not verify claim in article.
Him talking about himself to a buddy of his, not independent coverage
Him talking about himself, not independent coverage, does not verify claim in article.
Not a relible source. Does not really verify claim in article.
About Waters, not Girgis. No mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
About Waters, not Girgis. Only passing mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
Has section about Waters. No mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
Not an independent reliable source. Just his name in a list.
An interview of Little Sea, not about Grigis.
About Little Sea, no mention of Grigis. Does not verify claim in article.

This is promotion from a single purpose account. One of multiple accounts used to promoted around I Forget Sorry! Note same photo used here as in some of the above PR rehashes.
This recreated ~~wankfest~~ promo piece should be deleted and not merged because it is spam, is very poorly sourced and the SPA creator is ignoring consensus and gaming the system. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duffbeerforme Has repeatedly shown his extreme bias on these pages. You can see his use of the word 'wankfest' in the above, he regularly abuses publishers using terms like this. His general approach is to refer to people as sock puppets, or point out single use accounts as though it makes the content less verifiable. He's an Australian user known in the Australian Music community who has a personal gripe with both the subject of this article and his associated parties. He's been on a personal vendetta for years and you can trace this across numerous pages that have been verified (e.g. Chance Waters, Coptic Soldier, all of which he has previously raised for deletion. He should not have anything to do with this argument for those reasons, he can't separate himself emotionally and is personally known to many people who work in this area.

Please review the sources for yourself, these are in major publications about the largest music media group in Australia. They are independent coverage including full scale interviews in fully independent websites for different media groups. I will review the sources above.

Full interview with Telum Media. Henceforth let it be known that on Wikipedia the duffbeerforme approach classifies full length interviews in major media as 'talking about oneself'. This isn't a pub, Duffbeerforme, it's an interview in Telum, the biggest media datebase in the entire Asian and South East Asian region.
One of the largest entertainment publishers in Australia covering the acquisition, with a photo of the subject. I like that duffbeerforme says that 'notability of acts he has managed does not constitute notability'. Particularly considering that he has been defeated on AfD for nearly every article of any talent managed by Luke Girgis previously.
More coverage of the subject, with a photo of him, rather than a 'minor variation' this is more coverage about it with individual writing from the group. mediaweek are an enormous national publication focusing on the exact issues and individuals this article pertains to. Contrary to what Duffbeerforme has written this article mentions the subject by name 7 times, including in the meta tags. Check for yourself.
As above 'minor variation' as quoted by duffbeerforme refers to individual publication generated content AROUND the individual and the acquisition - a major acquisition in the Australian Music Media landscape.
No idea what duffbeerforme even means about the subject being a 'co-manager' this article is covering the signing of the talent to Luke Girgis as a manger, about Luke Girgis's company, in an independent publication Luke Girgis has no link to. The entire covers and quotes both Girgis and the talent.
As above this article is covering the signing of the talent to Luke Girgis as a manger, about Luke Girgis's company, in an independent publication Luke Girgis has no link to. Covers and quotes both Girgis and the talent.
This is published by Australian Music Week, who are an independent government funded source. Please explain what duffbeerforme means, because the data comes from a press kit?
His name in a list of attendees, which is what the claim is, that he was invited to etc. - despite the fact this indicates notability in Australian Music it also directly verifies the claim.
Is independent coverage, in Australian Music so the 'buddy' relationship is as common as it would be for a tech developer to be covered in a tech magazine by someone they know. The friendly tone doesn't change the fact this is an ongoing independent series with hundreds of episodes that is covering Luke Girgis and covers those similar to him in all other episodes.
Independent coverage, does verify claim.
Is a reliable source, does verify claims, again duffbeerforme demonstrating bias. He is literally repeatedly claiming all sources 'don't verify claims' even though these same sources are present in the coptic soldier article and have been verified in a previous AfD raised by the same user.
About Waters, who Girgis manages and works with - see coptic soldier - does verify claim.
About Waters, who Girgis manages and works with - see coptic soldier - does specifically mention Girgis, does verify claim.
Has section about Waters. Verifies claim in article.
Independent source, list demonstrates notability, ties to claim.
An interview of Little Sea, mentions Girgis, demonstrates claim.
About Little Sea, does verify claim.

Justthemusic (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at a few of the claims made above to guage the honesty in that reply.

"numerous pages that have been verified (e.g. Chance Waters, phatchance, Coptic Soldier, all of which he has previously raised for deletion." Claims I have previously raised both for deletion. True for Phatchance eg. But Coptic Soldier? Not in here or [25]. If I raised it for deletion then Justthemusic must remember it from deleted pages, from when he had a different account, pages that should have been deleted.

"is personally known to many people who work in this area." Really? Name one who even knows who I am.

(numbered as at time of nomination for consistency here)

17. Wikipedia page says "In 2015 Girgis oversaw the release "... There is no mention of Girgis overseeing anything, let alone any mention of Girgis.

16. Wikipedia page says "who under his tutelage". Not from this source.

15. How does list is any way demonstrate notability? Press Release from The Seed. Not an independent reliable source.

14. [26] Wikipedia page says "Girgis negotiated a multi album major label deal "... There is no mention of Girgis negotiating anything, let alone any mention of Girgis. No multi album deal either, a publishing agreement of unspecified extent.

13. Does mention Girgis as I stated above. The extent of the mention "Waters is managed by Luke Girgis at I Forget, Sorry!" That does not verify negotiating anything, let alone a non mentioned multi album deal.

It goes on. Some points on two others

5. What do I mean about 'co-manager'. "brand new joint venture between renowned Aussie managers Luke Girgis (Chance Waters, Mind Over Matter) and Matt Cannings (L-FRESH The LION, Chance Waters)." Joint venture, two managers, but Cannings is conveniently ignored in the wikipedia article and above.

10. I may have missed it but I heard no mention of Rehabilitation Counselling at the University of Sydney or Theology at Charles Sturt University. (An aside, says he was born in Melbourne, not Sydney).

Even if we put aside the lack of verification of claims none of this provides any depth of independent coverage about Girgis.

As for my claimed bias, pot kettle black. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite part is where you conveniently ignore the great bulk of the sources on the page by saying 'some of the claims'. I also like where you point to single articles down the chain of the entire Wikipedia entry and then pretend that all the statements made must stem from the proceeding reference, as though the ten articles before it and the two audio interviews have no included information.. How about the 10 that proceed it? You are correct though, /some of the article I have built is based on personal knowledge, the same as every other article I have built in a small sub genre of music in which I am an expert, The same as the numerous changes available on my Steve Zimmy account to more than a dozen different band pages. feel free to insert source required rather than AfDing the entire article as you always do, I would be more than happy to edit or source those few statements - which are all completely correct. Your accusations of promotional bias because I don't mention a co-manager is just strange. I didn't even realize Cannings was involved, though I hardly see how that possibly detracts from the notability of the subject. Perhaps I might suggest you contribute something useful to Wiki for once and create a Cannings article, or add his involvement - then you can AfD yourself! Or just F yourself even.

RE the personal aspect, I and multiple other people know exactly who you are, but I am not going to dox a wiki editor in an argument on a talk page, just because they are a biased and abusive and boring person. Justthemusic (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite part is where you totally ignore all the points made. Instead your stream of adhoms continues.

"then pretend that all the statements made must stem from the proceeding reference". (assuming you meant following ref) WP:GOODREFS "A citation must verify the statement in the text." "You need to cite a source that directly supports the statement about his achievement."

On that personal aspect, so can't name any then. Because you have No Idea. Perhaps instead you could identify the area in which these people work.

on 5 you say "I didn't even realize Cannings was involved". I guess you didn't read the source then. Because you are an expert and already know everything? Except you were wrong. Actually checking sources can be enlightning. Like born in Sydney? Nope, you were wrong there. Was that from your personal knowledge, a source no-one can verify.

Let's go through the sources you are pretending that I ignored.

11. "and Mind Over Matter". nope, no mention of them

9. Girgis talking about Girgis is not independent of Girgis

8. Being on such a list does not indicates notability in Australian Music as seen by Wikipedia. Extent of coverage "Luke Girgis (Shock Records, Be Like Children)". does not verify that he "operated as A&R and label director"

7. Delegate supplied bios are not independent of the delegate.

6. "said Be Like Children Director Luke Girgis". Says he is director of the management company, not that he is her manager. Yep splitting hairs on that one.

4,3,2,1. Press releases are not independent relable sources. Count as nothing for coverage for WP:GNG.

2. Where did I write what you claim. As for "defeated", nope not a contest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phatchance, !voted delete (nomination), result deleted. So what afds was I "defeated" in?

3. "Contrary to what Duffbeerforme has written this article mentions the subject by name 7 times, including in the meta tags." I never wrote anything to the contarry. But let's look at the mentions. 1. photo caption. 2. "CEO of Seventh Street Media, Luke Girgis, " 3. "Seventh Street Media is a new company, incorporated after Seventh Street Ventures partnered with Luke Girgis who is CEO of Seventh Street Media.". 4,5,6,7 ? So trivial coverage about him.

Justthemusic has shown his extreme bias on these pages. When presented with evidence he replies with arguments about the nominater. He should not have anything to do with this argument for those reasons, he can't separate himself emotionally and is personally known to many people who work in this area. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please User:Duffbeerforme embarrass yourself by raising some more AfD's and misrepresenting sources. If you would like I can repeatedly reference the same sources 20 times through the article to validate every sentence, that way you can hypocritically and self defeatingly claim bombardment again. You're a total joke, you can complain some more about ad hominem inbetween referring to people as a waste of air and claiming wankfest about articles on individuals personally known to you, that you have repeatedly targeted for more than 6 years. The non biased editors who check the sources will vote keep, stop wasting mine and others times with these stupid AfDs. Ta. Justthemusic (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again when presented with facts you respond with lies and attacks. That needs to stop now. Girgis personally known to me, never met the man, wouldn't know him from a bar of soap. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I participated in the previous AfD and argued for a redirect to Coptic Soldier. I invite @Feminist:, the editor who enacted that redirection, to this discussion. I will look over the resources currently in the article to determine their reliability and independence from the subject. I will then consider whether the additional material constitutes sufficient evidence of the subject's notability sans Coptic Soldier. After these investigations I expect to provide a decision on this AfD.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note I just added a Fuurst Media article verifying the Shock Records claim in Brag #671, "Brag#671 by Furst Media .... Shock Records A&R/label director Luke Girgis has left the business, ...". It is worth noting that this is a publication now owned by Girgis, however at the time of writing it was under the direction of Fuurst Media and not associated, so it's an independent source. Justthemusic (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to the above, it is worth noting that the single purpose account that he is referring to is my long term Wikipedia account User:Stevezimmy. Not in fact a single purpose account, but rather one in personal conflict with him in regards to an entire genre of music. I no longer have access to this account, hence the new account.Justthemusic (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple SPAs, Blazinthrough, [27]. Iforgetsorry [28]. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was not aware of those accounts, iforgetsorry looks like an official account for the record label, regardless this brings the SPA count to a grand total of two (unless you'd like to count me for losing my login), both of which appear to have a few minor changes and one of which at least in name looks like an official account of the label. Congratulations, better take them all to AfD using your strenuous and special standards. Justthemusic (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's worth noting that the SPA I was refering to in the nomination was Justthemusic, not Stevezimmy. It's the only SPA I had mentioned then. On the two just above. Blazinthrough + 7 deleted edits including an earlier version of Coptic Soldier. Iforgetsorry + 28 deleted edits including Inkstains prior to it's release. And yep, maybe some more articles should go to afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article in question, it appears that there are unwarranted grounds for its deletion. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion

Articles will usually be deleted if there is a consensus to do so. Perusing the comments above, there is clearly not a consensus to delete this article.

Administrators considering the deletion of this article should disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. It is clear that name-calling (eg wankfest) in the above comments is evidence that this process has not been made in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus

The user nominating for deletion has not contributed to the article talk page, has made very few edits to the page, and considering that the article is just on 1 year old, has not allowed reasonable time to allow the page to sufficiently expand and grow into a polished article.

Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.

2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.

Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.[a]

2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.

3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "2017 March 1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "2017 March 1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

.

There appears to be an argument about the authenticity of the subject. According to [29] Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified. (rather than pushing through deletion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion_of_BLPs

In closing, this article should be allowed to continue to grow into a polished article over time; with the support from credible Wiki editors who are willing to guide the article writer/s through the talk page. It is clear that the article has not had this opportunity. Deleting this page is not appropriate given the information above.

--Benwebboz (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a long winded way of saying absolutely nothing about the notability of the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have perused the sources and agree with Justthemusic (talk) in the summary of them. I object to the deletion of this page.

--Benwebboz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General question, what in his analysis demonstrates the notability of Girgis? What sources provide any depth of independent coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG?

Specific question about #17 above. How does a source that does not mention Girgis possibly verify that Girgis did something? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coptic Soldier. This was the result of the previous AfD. My decision relates to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and whether the subject of this article is sufficiently independently notable from the existing article on Coptic Soldier: I don't believe that this has been established. I see no reason why there should be two wp articles with one covering his performance name and the other dealing with subsequent careers under his given name: only one article is necessary. Gsearch has "Coptic Soldier" with 3160 hits whereas "Luke Girgis" has 1790 hits. Any useful content from the current form of this article may be transcluded to Coptic Soldier prior to a redirect.

My decision hinges on the sources being used, one has to determine whether they are reliable, independent of the subject and if the coverage is significant / substantial. My opinions on each source at the time of the AfD (see article history here) follow:

According to their website, here, "Telum Media is a Singapore, Hong Kong & Sydney registered company founded in 2013 by former PR & journalism professionals who saw the need for a comprehensive media database in Asia." The actual interviewer is not given in the cited article. Independence is questionable due to its PR associations. Alexa ranking of 36,961 in Australia, here.
The news site is independent, with editorial oversight, according to this. Alexa gives it an Australian website ranking of 1269, here. As for the article itself, VK, the writer, is also on the editorial team. She acknowledges citing from a media release by the company. The content does mention and quote the subject of the article although it also delves into his company's formation, recent acquisitions and cites their former owners/directors. This article does give substantial coverage of the subject. See next two refs.
MediaWeek is an Australian trade magazine; it is independent and reliable. Alexa rates it at 14,258 for Australia here. The article's writer is not specified, content repeats much of the previous article, (both are dated 17 January 2017; determination of direction of commonality is problematic). Its focus is more on the company but the subject is mentioned, cited and a photograph supplied. It appears to be derived from the same PR / media release as above.
According to here, it is independent, albeit recently formed (in 2015). It is not ranked by Alexa for Australia, but it is rated at 40,622 for US, here. Content and date similar to above. It appears to be derived from the same PR / media release as previous two.
Independent and verifies that the subject jointly managed a band. Not substantial coverage. Website ranked at 2754 for Australia, here. Does not contribute to the notability of this subject.
Site is independent and reliable. Verifies that an artist signed with subject's management company. Not substantial coverage. Alexa rating per Australia is 7394, here. Does not contribute to the notability of this subject.
Biography supplied by subject's management company as his credentials for a conference presentation. Not independent. Site not ranked by Alexa for Australia, here. Does not support notability of subject.
the.Music.com.au is reliable and independent. Alexa rating per Australia is 2754, here. Coverage of the subject is minimal and does not support content in article. Does not support notability of subject.
According to here, content is user supplied. Not reliable. No alexa ranking. Author, DW, claims that the subject is "a buddy of mine" hence not independent. Does not support notability of subject.
Joy 94.9 is a community radio site, interview verifies that subject of this article is the same person as Coptic Soldier. Does not support separate notability.
According to here, the site is run by NK, who is the author of the article. Subject is briefly mentioned but not given substantial coverage. Alexa rating per Australia is 79,416, here. Does not support notability of subject.
Subject not mentioned. Alexa rating per Australia is 60,134, here. Does not support notability of subject.
the.Music.com.au (see above). Coverage is minimal and does not support notability of subject.
Article is not about this subject. Source is certainly independent and reliable (see APRA) but provides no support towards notability of subject.
Subject listed as one of 20+ recipients of funding for a management workshop. Source is independent and reliable but provides no support towards notability of subject.
Subject not mentioned. Source is student-based news service. Alexa rating per Australia is 6729, here. Provides no support towards notability of this subject.
Subject not mentioned. Source is independent and reliable. Provides no support towards notability of this subject.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later added ref, now at:

Brag was published by Furst Media. Article posted on 13 June 2016, which is about six months before the public announcement of the subject's company acquisition of Furst Media. Alexa search is only for issuu.com here, not on Furst Media nor on Brag. Australian rating not available. Article's page number not given, I haven't been able to find the specific article cited and so the content has not been checked.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shaidar cuebiyar. On Brag. The content is on page 10. It's one of those short snippets on industry comings and going that you get in those street press mags. "Shock Records A&R/label director Luke Girgis has left the business ..." ~80 words. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. After reading the passage, I see that it does verify the content indicated but this is not substantial coverage of the subject. The ref can be used in Coptic Soldier to verify such a claim there. It does not support independent notability, here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything I would consider substantial coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. the analysis of sources by the nominator reveals this. In my several years participating in AfDs, extremely long winded arguments for keep are a dead give away of a conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant advertisement for Mr Girgis. The article is written in a promotional tone, and the references do not establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Clarke[edit]

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

Nowhere near meets WP:GNG and completely fails WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player born in the 1980s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram Mehrshahi[edit]

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

No references. Not notable. A Google search turns up only vanity hits (including this article). Article is promotional; cleaning it up would leave very little or nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Promotional article. Non-notable subject. Delete. Jack Frost (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the photos was deleted and the other probably will be deleted due to copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is purely promotional and the author is made by himself. Bumbl_loid (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Erotic electrostimulation. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violet wand[edit]

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

I do not believe this product/thing is notable by our standards. It has a long past of product placement (see the history--note how company links are used as references), and apparently this is just not a very notable machine. Searching around we have a ton of commercial links and webstore entries; Google News delivers a few hits but none from mainstream publications or even reliable fringe sources, as far as I can tell--and I do not, in any of these web sites and whatnot, see more than just passing mentions. We need in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sex toy: While it may not be notable enough to warrant its own article, I think it would make sense as part of a larger article. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that--but the burden of RS remains... Drmies (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if there are RS) and/or redirect to Erotic electrostimulation, which seems a more specific target than sex toy. LadyofShalott 16:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge into what article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous question still remains.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Erotic electrostimulation based on finding the following book sources (in addition, it appears in many more fiction pieces).

There are enough sources here to support merge. I'm really not sure there is enough depth to support a stand-alone article. If there is a merge, a Redirect should be left also. MB 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course these things are notable, nor are they merely sex toys. They have a long and continuing history going back into Victorian quack medicine and they are a technically distinct type of machine from pretty much anything else. They belong as a section within Erotic electrostimulation, same as TENS machine and arc welder, but just like those devices they also warrant a stand-alone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Khan and Sherbano[edit]

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

Multiple issues for 3 years, unreferenced. Possible copy and paste of : http://www.khyberwatch.com/Sahar/2011/Sahar-Jan-2011.pdf [PDF] Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:48, 14 February 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 18:48, 14 February 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 18:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've completely rewritten the article. While there are not a lot of sources that I can find, those I see suggest the story is a major one in Pashto folklore. By my count, it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria 1 (published print translations into French in 1982 and English in 1988) 3 (turned into a significant Pashto movie) and maybe WP:GNG, with in depth coverage by Heston (1986, 1994) and mention as representative of a genre in Pashto Culture by Hanaway (2011). The weaknesses of this argument include the issue that Heston was a coauthor in the English translation and is the main source of in depth coverage, the French translation was for a MA thesis, and the mention in Hanaway (2011) is passing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements to the article by User:Smmurphy (which render the nominator's rationale for deletion no longer valid.) Nice work, Smmurphy. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rewrite. I believe it passes WP:NB. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Wonderful job User:Smmurphy on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Flow Systems[edit]

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

No indication that this books meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book meets the academic text notability guidelines, it is has been cited over 700 times in academic technical papers and journals concerning computational fluid dynamics. See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3936623940154882623&as_sdt=4005&sciodt=0,6&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by MentorMAD (talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MentorMAD: the number of citations is not one of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. What has been published about this book? VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuark: Usually by nature a technical paper citation is a discussion "about" the book. In effect it is referencing the book in the text as a source for the discussion that they are developing. Internal Flow Systems is widely used in fluid flow testing laboratories. The textbook has also been integrated into undergraduate fluid flow lecture courses, including "Introduction to Fluid Mechanics" by Professor Juniper at Cambridge University, UK. (http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~mpj1001/learnfluidmechanics.org/LFM_L0.html) - (http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~mpj1001/learnfluidmechanics.org/LFM_blank_notes/handout_6_v5.pdf). He cites it as..."an excellent source of practical information on internal flow" for one dimensional pipe flow. Could you also please clarify, in quantitative terms, what is meant by, "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media", in the context of niche technical books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MentorMAD (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Summary of article: Bibliographic details, contents, author-published memoir, and section "Uses" which tells us that students read the book to learn what it says. There really is nothing here except a book advert. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium, Could the same be said for Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry%27s_Chemical_Engineers%27_Handbook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinalaw (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) previously edited this discussion under the user name MentorMAD[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. But that article cites a review (which is by definition written about the book), so it definitely is in better shape than the article currently under discussion. VQuakr (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the guidelines for Academic texts on Wikipedia, ^[1], this text meets the criteria for notability in the guidelines. The guidelines stipulate citations not reviews as being required, as previously mentioned it is taught at Cambridge University as well as used as required reading for the course, the aforementioned course leader comments: "an excellent source of practical information on internal flow" for one dimensional pipe flow." Finally it has been widely cited (over 700 times) in published engineering journals and academic whitepapers, and is in it's third edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinalaw (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City First Church (Rockford First Church)[edit]

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

No evidence from the sources in the article that this meets the notability standard, nor is there any evidence from a Google search for more sources. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously, searches need to be made under the church's old name. But the coverage in Outreach Magazine means this is not a run-of-the-mill church. St Anselm (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Churches this size are almost always sourceable. In this case, I ran a gNews search on the Pastor, who has an unusual name , here:[30] I'm am confident that there is more sourcing available. The Rockford Register Star is a WP:RS, but it is not the sole source. Certainly, the article needs improvement and has a PROMO tone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the keep votes above do make some valid points however to be encyclopedic it'd need to be completely re-written as its sources are in my opinion unreliable. Probably delete then notify creator and suggest using WP:AfC. DrStrauss talk 11:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrStrauss, See: WP:NEXIST. And note that overstuffed and PROMO article son notable topics can be reduced to a stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have added 2 search bars with terms that produce persuasive WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have BOLDLY and ruthlessly reduced the article. Let us pray for more good editors to improve this and other articles, across the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I also contacted major recent contributor, an SPA, suggesting that he read up on editing/sourcing Wikipedia articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't see any problem with the sources at this point. In my opinion it meets GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to solicit comments regarding rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic already seemed notable to me, and the improvements have helped in strengthening that opinion. — Yash^talk stalk 19:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability has been established. This close does not hold prejudice against recreation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streets in Oslo[edit]

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

Utterly useless list of 13 roads in Oslo, bizarrely ranging from highways to small-time dead-ends. A result of a merger of a dozen individual road articles, most of which are in themselves not notable, the list is essentially untouched since 2009. No potential. In case you wondered, Oslo has hundreds of roads. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, no argument, you just want to have your vote counted? Is this also a request to have a vote-counting admin to close this discussion without regard to strength of argument and applicable policy? Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue If the article contains alleged undue weight because it covers cul-de-sacs in preference to more-prominent roads, this is not an WP:UNDUE problem that is solved with deletion, this is simply the current consensus at this article for what should be covered. This is an "editing opportunity", not a "deletion opportunity". Besides obvious arguments from WP:ATA such as "no one is working on it" and "it is useless"; the dig on WP:ATD that the article is the result of a merge is not supported by WP:Deletion policy, as merge is accepted as part of deletion policy for non-notable topics. The nomination fascinatingly contradicts itself when it first of all says that there is no article potential and then stipulates that there are hundreds of roads in Oslo. Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be editing issues. Major roads in any major city can be covered in an article, though, as there exists coverage about them of course. Having a list-article is a good thing, too, enabling us to redirect smaller articles about individual roads to the list-article. --do ncr am 14:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but blank the whole thing and translate no:Veier i Oslo, I'll do it gladly. As it stands now the inclusion criteria is unknown or the streets are just randomly picked, G*d knows. It's not a list article, that one we have at List of streets in Oslo. — Sam Sailor 03:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and then let Sam Sailor create a new article as he suggests. There is no reason to preserve this history of this article by blanking it and maintaining the title. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list of non-notable streets, WP:NOTINHERETED applies. Ajf773 (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mainly per MelanieN's rationale, but I would also agree that Sam Sailor translate the Norweigan article. For this to be done, the page should not be deleted . Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the article overall fails WP:GEOROAD and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but some of the streets could stand in their own articles. South Nashua (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random WP:MILL roads, no indication why these in particular need coverage. If anybody wants to translate the Norwegian article, they can do so from scratch after deletion. Sandstein 18:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. If any of them were inherently notable, they would have their own article. Nördic Nightfury 09:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Global United[edit]

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

This pageant doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I could find no coverage, other than local news stories in the vein of "Someone from our town will be in the pageant". I couldn't find any coverage of the pageant itself from significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Failed to meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not pass even minimal requirements of WP:42. --Jayron 32 21:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor, run of the mill, recent pageant. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ultimately I agree with Fenix Down. Playing in one pre-season friendly match is not really playing in a professional competition. If he had played other games it wouldn't matter, but he didn't, and he doesn't pass WP:GNG for any other reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schirripa[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I don't believe the now defunct A-league pre-season challenge cup should be considered as notable due the unusual format and the fact that is was largely used by clubs as an experimental tournament to trial potential new signings. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a tough one. I think seeing as the challenge cup was the only Professional Domestic cup in the A-League at the time and this particular competition is mentioned quite extensively on the 2005-06 A-League season, that he does pass WP:NFOOTY because of the fact both of the teams were fully proffesional in his sole game. However, this is very marginal and I would like to see the opinions of other editors on this issue. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to agree with the above, Sydney FC etc. are major teams, encyclopedic value.Justthemusic (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NFOOTY says Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following (bolding added by me).
Note that word "presumed": NFOOTY notability is a rebuttable presumption. In this discussion, the nominator has not tried to rebut that presumption, but nor have other editors offered any evidence that this does meet GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of the article played in a professional match and thus passes WP:NFOOTY. Also while it might be a stretch to say that the article comprehensivly passes WP:GNG it is well sourced enough and still has the possibility of expansion. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. It seems pretty clear that the competition he played in between two fully professional clubs was nothing but a pre-season friendly competition. I see no evidence to suggest that its importance should be elevated to being the equal of the FFA Cup. Furthermore, this player is 34; one substitute appearances, regardless of the level of competition, a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside Banshees Rugby Club[edit]

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

Has to satisfy the criteria for WP:ORGCRITE: is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Does it do this? I think not. The only sources are both WP:PRIMARY and not reliable enough. A WP:BEFORE search reveals little other than their website, Facebook, pinterest, an blogs. Lack of extensive third party sourcing fails it at WP:GNG as well: no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing in independent sources. Otherwise, O Fortuna has covered the case well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Eggishorn. Not much else to add because they've covered it all already. --Jayron 32 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburne Glen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for AfD in 2008, but the nomination was swiftly withdrawn on the grounds that the article met WP:BAND. At the time, WP:BAND presumed notability on the grounds of "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". That guideline has since been changed to "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Ashburne Glen fails on those grounds. It did contain some musicians who left to join other bands, but none of those guys (Chad Stockslager (The Drams), Sean Kirkpatrick (The pAper chAse) and Joe Cripps (Brave Combo) are notable in and of themselves. Ashburne Glen also fails WP:BAND in general, as there are no reliable independent sources, no charting singles, no major releases, and no documented national or international tours. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, no reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politekid (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Delete: fails BAND, GNG and BIO. Quis separabit? 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive delete Only one reliable source cited, AllMusic. Search links at top provide zero hits. The band is non-notable. Tapered (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Toaster Labs[edit]

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

Only source may be created by someone affiliated with the subject. Google results revolve around linkedin and PR newswire. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. I could not find any non-PR sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPAM and GNG. South Nashua (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "renowned sexologist"? The trademark symbols are a give-away. Perhaps speedy. Created by single-purpose account Erickmn9 who only edited that one day. W Nowicki (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks exactly like the clarisonic page referenced on the talk page, why keep that one but delete this? Doesn't seem consistent. ForestBecca (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— ForestBecca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Agreed with ForestBecca, if we delete this then why not delete all others like it? This discussion makes wiki very hypocritical. Lexiseattle (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Lexiseattle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete no coverage in indepenent sources. Article is obvious use of Wikipedia for marketing by editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline speedy deletion case (as pure advertising). No claim to notability and no significant coverage in independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic City Comic Con[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. While the name "comic con" is synonymous with notability, this is an organized event that has only occurred once in 2016, and has very little secondary coverage of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd strongly contest the premise that "comic con" is synonymous with notability; having been involved for many years in the organization and production of conventions, I'd have laughed myself hoarse at the notion that small conventions meet any notability standards conceivable. This particular one fails WP:ONEEVENT -- there's no lasting coverage, all the independent reliable coverage comes strictly from local media -- and satisfies no other criteria. Ravenswing 11:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG overrides CRYSTALBALL. This is an extremely weak case of CRYSTALBALL anyway. Further CRYSTALBALL nominations for any article should consider Google News results. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S8[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! This page should be deleted, and, if possible, SALTed until the device is made official in a couple of weeks. Note: this has been done to the S7 and the S6 before they were announced.

Pinging David.moreno72, who requested QD, and Adam9007, who declined it, to this discussion. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt until the proper announcement comes out on March 29th, which is when Samsung has advised it will happen. All the sources I'm seeing are speculative, "it might have", "it may come with", etc based on an apparently "leaked" video. ~~WP:TOOSOONdefinitely~~ I have been corrected... WP:CBALL is more appropriate. - Pmedema (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete TOOSOON, but on the border of being okay. If there were some sources on that article, I'd probably remove my comment. It's not my area of expertise, so I don't have strong feelings one way or another. South Nashua (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OMG, about 816,000 results in Gnews, many with Samsung Galaxy S8 in the headline. It's notable about 1000 times over. Expand with some background info about how widely the device is anticipated. This is not WP:CBALL because it will definitely be released unless North Korea invades South Korea, nationalizes Samsung, and renames this phone as the Democratic People's Phone Company Kim Jong-un 8 within the next two weeks. The phone will be released before this AFD is closed, so I don't understand the AFD proposal. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The text from WP:CBALL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." WP:TOOSOON is an essay about not-yet-notable actors and unreleased movies. WP:CBALL is the relevant policy, which states that it is appropriate to include the anticipation and expectations of appropriate sources, as long as we are not ourselves speculating about the device. Neither the essay nor the policy provide a case for deletion. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON . I tagged this with a CSD as it was some teenagers 'vandalism', which has subsequently been deleted. It has now been improved, but still doesn't make for a 'good' article. Until it has officially been released with full specs and reviews, and the stub can be expanded upon, I would wait until then. David.moreno72 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of article has itself been the subject of multiple, reliable, in-depth sources. If things do change about this subject, our article can change with it. One month before the release date is not too soon; given that there is already reliable, in-depth coverage of the topic. --Jayron 32 21:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep much like other articles, it has significant coverage in media outlets and has an official release date. Not a crystal ball unless it also contains speculative and unconfirmed facts. See Apple electric car project specifically its many deletion requests for more. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand with a few wikilinks, the subject is WP:NOTABLE because it is covered in many WP:INDEPENDENT sources. The article itself is not WP:CRYSTAL because it contains no speculation, just contains confirmed information reported by reliable sources about an upcoming device. Samsung has already announced its existence officially so it's no longer entirely speculatory. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lot of famous medias has told about this phone, it's enough to keep it. Bretwa (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The search for "Samsung Galaxy S8" surpassed one million results on Gnews today. "About 1,080,000 results." Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Samsung Galaxy S series (or Samsung Galaxy). This page does have important history that should be kept in tact for future development. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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