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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TI Taxi[edit]

TI Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This SBS show was never broadcast, so it may have not even been completed. The two listed references are dead. Does not appear to be notable. Boneymau (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did a quick Google search and found only one link referencing it (a shady-looking torrent site). Definitely not notable, it might even be a hoax. --— Chevvin 23:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, was commisioned by SBS and was being developed by Pixa House, a production company formed by some of the people from RAN Remote Area Nurse (TV series). Had public casting calls in NEQ. Filming was expected in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Never aired, lacks coverage. There is Wilson, Alf (30 January 2008), "Hopefuls join TI Taxi ranks", Koori Mail on it's development but that's indiscriminate puff. There's also two, "Indigenous actors wanted", Townsville Bulletin, 6 December 2007 and "Thursday Island to host television comedy series", The Cairns Post, 1 December 2007, in local NEQ papers but they are just PR for the upcoming casting call. But thats it, not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments - never aired and most likely non-notable. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Feminist Film Week[edit]

Berlin Feminist Film Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only found one reference on Google News, and that was just acknowledging its existence. Borders on a PROD due to lack of notability. It seems unlikely that more NPOV external sources can be found. South Nashua (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and the fact that there is no German Wikipedia article on the event doesn't give one confidence, either. 13:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment No German Wikipedia article is troublesome to me as well (however obviously not complete 'deal-breaker'). I did however find some entries in Google that are potentially notable for this? Berlin Film Journal Is that potentially notable (for an example) South Nashua? My Google Search--TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I think we'd need a couple to pass GNG. Thank you for your efforts searching, though. South Nashua (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: I agree with that haha. Here are two more I was able to find - at that was going through 10 pages of that google search I linked. Amnesty.de and TheUpcoming.co.uk (not sure if this one is notable or not...) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I guess we could give it a go. I don't like proposing deletion just for deletion's sake, if something can be saved, I'm okay to roll with that. South Nashua (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: So what happens now? We work on the article or? (new to AfD) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: An admin will close this as the nomination is technically withdrawn now. (If I was an admin, I'd close it, but alas, I am not.) Happy to work on the article with you, but my expertise is a mile wide and an inch deep, not sure if I can add much. South Nashua (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: I am not sure where to start other than proving it potentially notable haha. And you can close them yourself - see User talk:Mz7#Question about MfD discussions. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hoffman (broadcaster)[edit]

Lynn Hoffman (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Myspace and IMDb are not reliable sources. Most of the other sourcing is to companies she has worked with. Nothing comes close to showing she is a notable broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in third-party reliable sources. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurje–Styria derby[edit]

Prekmurje–Styria derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability, none of the 15 sources are about the so-called rivarly, googling doesnt provide any significant coverage; the main result for "štajersko-prekmurski derbi" is a volleyball match between some obscure teams, white there are almost no results for football match (and even those few results are just routine match reports). Snowflake91 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG; also see WP:NRIVALRY Spiderone 13:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is well referenced and cited. True it does not appear that there is much of a rivalry between the two clubs compared to other instances, but I think the information is useful and should be kept. At the very worst part of the text and sources should be merged into the two club articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – (Almost) the same text is already at NK Maribor#Rivalries for several years. Its true that the article is well-sourced, but all sources are completely out of context, none of the sources are direclty about the rivalry itself, for example the 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th reference confirms that one club was disbanded and re-eastblished (nothing to do with a rivarly, so basically half of the references are about the year in which the club(s) were established), the second source is head-to-head statistics, third and four reference is not about football at all but about Gross domestic product of the region, 12th reference is another H2H statistics etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Snowflake, whilst the article looks well referenced, there is nothing there which discusses the rivalry as a notion in itself. At best there are references to match reports which are used to synthesise discussion of a rivalry. Furthermore just because something is interesting is never a reason to keep an article. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Strickland[edit]

Craig Strickland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

100% of the sourcing surrounds his death. There doesn't seem to be any notability asserted before then. Backroad Anthem doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND, as there was zero coverage of them before the death of their lead vocalist. This is just a no-name that got a lot of buzz for dying and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete generally agree with this (ahem) somewhat harshly worded deletion rationale. The band is sometimes described as "up and coming", so it may be WP:TOOSOON for any of this. This could someday be a redirect to the band page's history section if and when the band becomes sufficiently notable for inclusion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The only keep opinions are by WP:SPA and possibly WP:COI accounts.  Sandstein  06:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non è mai Passato[edit]

Non è mai Passato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence indicated or found that this meets notability guidelines for films or anything else. Low budget short film, yet to be released (reportedly due December 2017), so WP:CRYSTAL as well. Prodded but PROD removed by IP editor. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with both of the original points. bojo | talk 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Some actors of the short film are present on the site "Malta Film Commission" and the short is on IMDb ; I am the creator of the page, if you want I'll add information/details --Bussival (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The page respect the requirements. — Giovaxim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bussival, IMDB contains a lot of a people/films/etc that do not meet wikipedia's notability requirements, and even an announced feature-length film with notable actors on IMDB does not have inherent notability (since films fail to progress all the time), per WP:NFF. What would be needed would be evidence of significant coverage sufficient to meet general or film-specific notability guidelines. That's difficult but not impossible for a short micro-budget film to meet, but would likely not be until the film is at least on the festival circuit and attracting significant independent critical attention and possibly awards. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unreleased films are typically not notable. I don't find anything to contradict that. IMDB is not a measure of notability.Glendoremus (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I inform you that there has been an budget increase thanks to external collaborations --Bussival (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George 12ster[edit]

Lake George 12ster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Mentions of this online appear to be confined to fewer than ten places presented by Google, including Facebook and meet-up sources. Unlikely that it's widely known or that it meets notability. On the article talk page, the author compares it to Adirondack Forty-Sixers, and it seems to be a recent idea based on that model. Even so, it may be WP:TOOSOON. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because it's like a famous thing, does not mean it is also a notable thing. This fails because of WP:NEO. I lived in Upstate New York for 24 years and never heard of this. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article calls it a "new hiking challenge". May someday be a thing, but seems to not be a thing yet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coy Bowles[edit]

Coy Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Should be a redirect to the band. But redirect keeps getting reverted. Not enough in-depth sourcing about the individual musician to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. This can be well sourced. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs some work, but the sources found by North strongly lead me to believe this one's a keeper. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, remove the WP:PRIMARY sources and improve the article. In addition to the sources above, the Google search has many more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broscience[edit]

Broscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Neologism with only three sources, a quackwatch blog post that doesn't mention the term, and two of the most unreliable sources imaginable: rationalwiki and the urban dictionary. Mduvekot (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crikey. Non-notable neologism.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to see here. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It might be possible to have an article on the topic, but the present article is rubbish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources exist for this neologism; perhaps it is just too soon. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pile-on, fails WP:NEO and no clear redirect target (or reason for looking for one)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Collectiv3. The arguments by "EVER Entertainment" (actually CamLagos1) would be interesting ... if they weren't transparenly by somebody affiliated with the subject. They are disregarded per WP:COI.  Sandstein  06:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poe (rapper)[edit]

Poe (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A search of him on Google shows press releases about his record deal with Mavin Records. It also shows circulated news about Kemi Adetiba having a crush on him. The subject has not received significant coverage to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject is part of the music collective, Collectiv3. However, notability cannot be inherited.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Poe (Rapper) Artist should meet conditions of general criteria as follows:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself -- Examples include credible online magazines such as OkayAfrica ^[1] and online reprints of broadcast media, such as Viacom-owned MTV Base/MTV Networks Africa ^[2]

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart -- Requirement does not specify concerning song ownership, as artist has songwriting rights to charting singles in Nigeria and Africa. Examples include "Marry Me" by Falz ft. Poe and Yemi Alade and "Chardonnay Music" by Falz ft. Poe and Chyn ^[3]

6. 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 -- This guideline should be satisfied by involvement in Collectiv3, but also under Mavin Records. Artists signed to the label can be considered an ensemble due to the release of their compilations ^[4]

8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award -- It should be taken into consideration that the Nigerian Entertainment Awards and The Headies are two of Africa's (let alone Nigeria's) biggest awards shows, for which this artist has been both nominated and an award recipient.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. -- Again, this should be satisfied by the Collectiv3 involvement/release of 'Collectiv3' compilation album. Also, artist has had several performance/appearances on several Nigerian television shows. Examples include: 'The Juice'/Ndani TV ^[5] and Ebonylife TV ^[6]

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network -- Artist is regularly in rotation on national radio stations. Also, MTV Base is a major African television network (MTV Networks Africa/Viacom). Artist has had singles/music videos including top single "Adore Her" in MTV's rotation as well as mentioned in online extension of television channel ^[7].

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network -- Artist is regularly featured on national radio. While broadcasts are not online, examples of artist presence include online features: Urban 96.5 ^[8], Fuze Radio ^[9] and Smooth FM 98.1 personality Folu Storms' radio show (extended online ^[10]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EVER Entertainment (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Collectiv3 for now. The subject is a case of WP:TOOSOON —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: I concur with you that it is too soon. Having said that, the rapper is dope. I forsee him being big. I like his rap verse on M.I's "All Fall Down" song.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:42, 21 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) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Series (MENA)[edit]

BeIN Series (MENA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable traffic generator page for Qatari channel. Only sources are to offshoots of subjects own website. L3X1 (distant write) 20:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nonsense deletion reason. Known channel in the MENA region from popular media company. Nate • (chatter) 20:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BCAST

• • most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes. It doesn't produce original content
  • Its not a TV network, we are talking about a channel on the network. beIN Channels Network is notable. This article isn't, and if not deleted should be redirected back to parent article. NOTINHERITED. My rationale is nonsense my foot. L3X1 (distant write) 20:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:
  • The vast majority of television stations serve a large regional market, often covering millions of households. beIN Series covers a large area; it is available in more than 23 countries.
  • Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes. The channel produces original content (via Miramax, a subsidiary of beIN Media Group), and broadcasts exclusive foreign programing in the MENA region, which makes it clearly "original".
  • beIN Series has sister channels in Turkey (beIN Series (Turkey)). A merge between the two pages can be an alternative solution, if sources do not exist at all. — Sincerely Issimo 15 21:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom. Comment I feel like parrot, so to avoid BLUDGEON I'll only say this one last time: This is a channel, not a TV network. L3X1 (distant write) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay but NBROADCAST explicitly covers both stations and networks, including national or regional cable channels. So I'm not sure that's a pertinent distinction in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 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) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software Quality Systems AG[edit]

Software Quality Systems AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am nominating Software Quality Solutions AG for deletion because in 7 years time, it has failed to get a verifiable source other than it's own website on the wiki. I believe it violates policy #7: Verifiability, and policy #8: Notability, as well as possibly policy #4 advertisement.

When Googling the company, the first 4 pages are either their own sources or just stock updates, or reports on their profits. Nothing on what they actually do. As far as I can tell from outside sources, the company only makes profits, and I don't feel that is notable.

Furthermore, the since there seems to be a lack of coverage of anything other than their profits, the only thing we can really say for sure about the company from 3rd party sources is their profits and stocks. Because of this, most of the article should be removed as it's not sourced.

Finally, the page has had problems in the past where it was written like an advertisement. Likely the company itself wrote it's article, and uses it to generate business. This is a violation of the guidelines.

This is my first major change to Wikipedia, and please let me know if I'm out of line here. I came here looking for information about what they do, and what their software does, but instead found the same information that occurs on their website. I honestly don't know why this whole page couldn't be replaced by a redirect to their website. ChthonicOne (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep and rewrite. The article is crap and needs a rewrite as it does feel like an advert, and agree that a Google search on the company name doesn't reveal much

https://www.european-business.com/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag/portrait/

http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/s/sqs-software-quality-systems-ord-eur1/share-news

And news-related sources

http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/9405310-dgap-adhoc-sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-director-pdmr-shareholdings

https://www.researchpool.com/provider/directors-deals/sqs-two-directors-bought-4000-shares-at-505p

But then I searched Google News (link at top of page) and found a lot of sources:

https://www.chaffeybreeze.com/2017/03/16/insider-buying-sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-insider-acquires-2000-shares-of-stock.html

http://petroglobalnews24.com/2017-03-15-sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-rating-lowered-to-hold-at-n1-singer/

https://sportsperspectives.com/2017/03/14/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-cut-to-hold-at-n1-singer.html

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/174382/sqs-software-is-confident-industry-trends-are-in-its-favour-174382.html

https://www.chaffeybreeze.com/2017/03/09/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-pt-lowered-to-gbx-688.html Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, all the news about the company that I could find was stock and profit updates. That is all you seemed to have found as well. They do have short blurbs about what the company does, but each one seems identical, so where did it come from? I'm not opposed to a rewrite of the article, but with the information given, the article will go from being about what the company does to how the company has performed with the sources available. Is that notable? ChthonicOne (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly promotional & it belongs on the company web site. Notability is not inherited from prominent clients. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTED the fact that it is listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange may not be sufficient, but there is public research/analyst coverage, so tend to favour a keep. Such as

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/174382/sqs-software-is-confident-industry-trends-are-in-its-favour-174382.html

http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-undervalued-relative-to-peers-but-dont-ignore-the-other-factors-2/?yptr=yahoo

http://investing.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article/id/5510033/ Jake Brockman (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Main deletion reason was copyvio concerns, while the latter delete comment seems to be addressed. Kurykh (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc A. Levin[edit]

Marc A. Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• @Diannaa and Chuckdevore: Queried speedy delete: At 22:41, 14 March 2017‎ User:Diannaa speedy-delete-tagged page Marc A. Levin as copyvio of [1], but I have received an email that says "Please look at the link to the .pdf you cited as justification for unambiguous copyright infringement, you'll see it was written by Marc A. Levin in his capacity as Director, Right on Crime. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit think tank that operates Right on Crime, published the paper which justnet.org published online. ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we can't and don't take people's word for it that they have permission to copy copyright material to this website. They have to provide proof that they have permission to do so. This is done via the OTRS ticket system. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I have addressed the copyright issues. There may still be a notability issue here, but at least it no longer appears to be a blatant copyvio. Marquardtika (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied that the copyright issue has been resolved and have done some revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I think notability is close with the Politico and Mother Jones links, but still not quite there. If there are more external sources, I'd probably change my mind. I did a quick search and it was mostly another Marc Levin known for political things. South Nashua (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• asking User:South Nashua to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Weak Keep Thank you for the heads up, I think it's above the threshold now on external sources. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Started sourcing him, there's more to add, but I think his role as founder and head of Right on Crime makes him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 30 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. Coverage is thin and promotional. Possibly the suggestion for creating Koala Clancy Foundation instead could fly, if somebody is able to find any depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources for that. (I'm having trouble seeing any, myself.) Bishonen | talk 20:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Koala Day[edit]

Wild Koala Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, promotional due to excessive inline external links Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, wow. This is very nearly WP:TNT territory and also possible WP:COI with the article creator (see [2]). That said, there is enough significant mentions in independent media [3] [4] [5] [6] (most of which are already linked from the article) [7] [8] [9] [10] to support notability of something here. Suggest Move to Koala Clancy Foundation, stripping out the obvious promotional/advocacy language (Surely its time to invest in koalas before they are lost forever? Really?) make "Wild Koala Day" a subsection under a "Programs" section, and provide more information about the foundation. In other words, the issues here are mainly editorial, not ones of notability. If this is kept, I would be willing to help implement these changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean up and move as per Eggishorn's well-founded comments. With a shift in focus to the organization, the available sources allow shaping a reasonable article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for sheer lack of sources. The list of sources in article and given by editor above are overwhelmingly primary or mere event listings in local paper. We often see this sort of source over-stuffing in AfDs and article about non-notable, bands and first-time novelists: looks like a news article, turns out to be a calendar listing. Here's a gNews search [11]; some, but not much, certainly not enough. Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX. For what it's worth, I am an environmentalist who has gone 10,000 miles out of my way to see koala bears in the wild (okay, I also checked out a few other species of fauna and the tree ferns while in the neighborhood. But I am a strict constructionist and even feel-good causes need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 6,8,and 9 are certainly not event listings, and I'm hard-pressed to understand how News.com.au (one of the biggest news sites in Australia) counts as a local source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source # 6 in the Geelong Advertiser is a photo and a singel sentence. #s 8, 9 are primary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per First world problems & WP:TOOSOON. This is all rather trivial and coverage not substantial enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards having a merge discussion elsewhere. Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Campbell Times[edit]

The Campbell Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Small-ish bi-weekly student paper. Best of Show at a statewide CMA competition was the best I could find.[12] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Campbell University#The Campbell Times, where the additional detail about the paper's history and circulation will be a positive addition. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the rationale of Arxiloxos above. A valid WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We keep university newspapers just as we keep small town newspapers and small defunct newspapers, because, as User:doncram states at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The University Register, "it is a lot like how we are a gazetteer for places, these are places that are sources."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did say what E.M.Gregory quotes. It does seem to me that newspapers are fundamental elements of an encyclopedia, the atoms that we rely upon for everything else. We are a "gazetteer" about places, basically willing to cover most places that have any sourcing about them, and newspapers are even more basic. Here, with The Campbell Times, we have a newspaper that lived just two years, but it is a source, and currently we know about it from this article that someone went through the bother of figuring out, and it should be kept. --doncram 19:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the suggestion above that it could be merged to Campbell University#The Campbell Times is reasonable on its face, but in fact the article is too long already to merge back. One sentence in the University article is about right. It is reasonable to split out the newspaper article as too much material for the university. It is four sentences plus some information in the infobox and in categories/links; it is a reasonable editorial decision to split it out. It is also too much information already to be merged into a list of defunct newspapers in the state. --doncram 19:08, 31 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) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Media[edit]

Amazing Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Quick Google search revealed most hits on this term were about a representation agency for musicians in the UK, so it's my assumption additional external sources are unlikely. South Nashua (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the company is a game developer that is indeed hard to find information about, but they've made multiple games that were notable enough for Wikipedia, and have made many of games for Interplay, the studio responsible for Earthworm Jim, Fallout, etc, so they are notable, just difficult to find info on, I will admit. Greasemann (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

• Delete GNG not met. Notability is not inherited - being involved in notable games is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alright fine, it's not that great of an article anyways, as you can tell. Greasemann (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hernando Williams[edit]

Hernando Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable criminal with little media coverage, fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Lexiconoflife (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally fails the guidelines that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The question is whether the subject is notable per WP:N, WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. This is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The first or last person executed by a state might be notable. Others not so much.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurship: Case Study of Genesis International llc Oman[edit]

Entrepreneurship: Case Study of Genesis International llc Oman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads very much like a personal essay, which I'm not sure can be turned into a neutral article about the company. Also, I'm not sure the company is notable. Also, I believe there are concerns about peacock words, such as, "...one of the most successful entrepreneurs..." and "His family owns the Al Khonji Group and Abdulrahman Group, which fall into the list of the most successful companies in Oman" (no reference for that).  Seagull123  Φ  18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR, SPAM, GNG, etc. South Nashua (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SPAM, non-encyclopaedic and possible copyvio as it looks copied/translated from a press release (even though I could not find the source with a quick search). Fbergo (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Pure, unmitigated spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP, even if it were not spam. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Antonio Toriello[edit]

Angelo Antonio Toriello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Probably notable but the only hope for this article is WP:TNT. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 18:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Strong delete The style is horrible, and the sourcing does not demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional garbage. The subject fails WP:GNG. Many of the references are mere mentions or are not independent. Because an article about this subject was deleted before, I'm wondering if this isn't eligible under WP:G4. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koulik Bhattacharjee[edit]

Koulik Bhattacharjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, passing mentions only in the sources mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a 14/15 year old who has not yet made major impacts in the music scene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He does seem to be a talented kid who may accomplish enough to meet our notability guidelines in the future, but I don't see the significant independent coverage to meet WP:BIO at this time. Peacock (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability has not been adequately established. The two articles in The Statesman referenced in the article only briefly mention his name. Other references are WP:USERG, and I couldn't find any other secondary source. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerald Justin Ko (JK)[edit]

Jerald Justin Ko (JK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sportsfan 1234 What do you mean by "Fails notability"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most radio DJs are not notable, and there is nothing her to show that Ko is an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the sources confirm a very unremarkable career. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie J Leonard[edit]

Bonnie J Leonard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Searches turned up virtually zero about this author, whether using the middle initial, not using the middle initial, or using her pen name of BJ. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using "BJ Leonard" as the search text at Google, I see the following favorable reviews: Goodreads Tellest Fantasy Author Reveiws Female Author Profile Amazon Books Reviews Azanmi (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)azanmi[reply]

• Delete Goodreads is a user generated site, not a reliable source, and Amazon.com reviews are a dime a dozen. Nothing shows actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 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) 02:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Allyn[edit]

Jonathan Allyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable musician, fails notability for music criteria. - TheMagnificentist 07:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Being mentioned in the top 100 is not wide spread, in-depth coverage. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 24 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) 02:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesina Anderson[edit]

Jamesina Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a person notable primarily as a city councillor. While Glasgow is a large and prominent enough city that its councillors would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL if they were sourced properly, this rests almost entirely on primary sources (birth and marriage registers, and the council's own archived records of its own internal business), with just one piece of actual reliable source coverage shown at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually show a greater volume of media coverage than this, but city councillors do not get an automatic NPOL pass just because they exist -- a city councillor's includability is entirely conditional on her sourceability, and the sources shown here aren't adequate. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable city council member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep I added routine news coverage of her 1945 electoral campaign..E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete changing my iVote. I was giving her a pass because she's a girl. But she's not a "first" either as a woman or as a Socialist for the Glasgow city council. coverage in a Proquest news archive search is just her name in the long list of candidates standing for... and a list of the poll result. Feel free to ping me if someone finds something substantive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Moglica[edit]

Elliott Moglica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This mess of an article is self-promotion by a subject who does not meet basic notability criteria nor the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Despite various attempts to tone down the promotional content added by a large number of COI sockpuppet accounts, the article is still basically a giant advertisement, contravening our policies on what Wikipedia is not. It is written in an unencyclopedic tone, and there are still active accounts adding blatantly promotional content and spamming the talk page. Every one of the subject's supposed "major works" is a red link. I looked one up on on Amazon and it appears to be a self-published work with minimal impact. The few reviews are fake, written with over-the-top praise by reviewers who have ONLY reviewed publications by this guy. Basically this guy is a master of self-promotion through the use of sockpuppet accounts. The references are often self-published, and the few reliable news media links are brief articles expressing surprise that someone wrote a very long poem on Justin Trudeau.

The awards do not appear to be reputable. The "International Society of Poets" and "International Library of Poetry" are associated with Poetry.com, a vanity press. The only Google results for the words "Missionary Albanian Artists Association" or "Albanian Martyrs National Association" is this article – granted, it could be a language issue but the general point is that the awards, if they are awards, are not enough to confer notability. Citobun (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or full protect - The article should be brought up to standards and fully protected and deal with edit requests deleted, looking at the files on Commons, most have been deleted as promotional, even for Commons - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It is sad to see such an open discriminatins againts this author. I don't see why we need to keep the tempates, since at all sice sources clearly support the material as presented in the article. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.240.138 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note – This IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with "discrimination". Nobody on here owes him anything, for starters — it's the article's responsibility to meet our inclusion standards, not our responsibility to handwave its problems away just because you allege "discrimination" without substantiating any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Normally I'm not comfortable with calls to delete an article merely for conflicts-of-interest or self-promotion/advertising. Those are not actual grounds for deletion if the subject is demonstrably notable. And then we have this article. I'm going to set aside COI/promotional concerns for a moment. Getting through the fluff, is there an article here, something that fulfills our policy requirements? The closest we can get is the Justin Trudeau poem which received some coverage. Remove that claim for notability and we are left with nothing. As nominator Citobun outlines in their very thorough rationale, the other claims for notability are self-published works reviewed by questionable authors and the awards are also questionable and linked to a vanity press. So that leaves us with the one claim to notability that received some media attention. However, given the lack of any other claim to notability, this would fall squarely under WP:ONEEVENT, and barely that -- the media sources are slim at best. As for the conflict of interest, the self-promotion, the sockpuppetry: taken by themselves they would be a problem but if there was an article that could be otherwise saved, they would not be enough for deletion. That said, given the lack of notability and the publicity campaign by single-purpose accounts who make very few, if any other edits, this lands the article squarely in WP:NOT territory, specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. (I've noticed that if those IPs and accounts do any other editing it involves topics connected to Moglica in some way, such as Cambridge University where Moglica claims to have studied). To put it simply, WP:NOT cannot be satisfied, WP:ONEVENT is applicable, and without that one possible claim to notability the article clearly fails WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 20:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's Improve the page Well, I look at a few of the references - and they do look like reliable sources of information to me. I don't understand why some people are using Wikipedia to directly or indirectly spread hate. I don't agree with misuse of powers. How can we improve the article? Best regard.British Spelling — Hot British (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Make it better In my view the key here is how to make the page better not to abuse powers. We are all volunteering here. I'm not confortable to go to the extreme. — Hot British (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete It is way past time that we have a policy to delete any article the subject creates on themselves. Beyond this, at best this person has one event notability. The coverage says "look, there is this epic poem on Trudeau". The poem may be notable, but that does not automatically make its author notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if necessary salt An enormous vanity piece on a non-notable figure "Since 2010, Moglica has been volunteering for Justin Trudeau and LPC — to bring back in power the Liberal Party of Canada. Moglica has been one of the biggest supporters of Justin Trudeau — " it breathlessly intones. A magnet for sockpuppetry, single purpose accounts, self-puffery and so on. Let's close this - and Moglica - down, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with SALT. I've been involved in dealing with this situation in the past, but I eventually got fed up and washed my hands of it entirely — but it's been clear from the start that this has always been a self-promotion campaign by a writer who feels entitled to have a Wikipedia article for public relations purposes. The only strong notability claim he ever really had makes him a WP:BLP1E at best, and otherwise this keeps getting tarted up with blatant promotional puffery and unreliable sourcing. There simply isn't the substance, or the reliable sourcing, needed to hang a Wikipedia article on. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to delete and we should be respectful and kind to each other. Why are you doing this when someone has tried to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve and/or protect - no need to be disrespectful against the author Hello everyone, I don't know why we need to blame the author here? The fact is that as comments become more disrespectful, we should not forget the say "treat others as you want to be treated". This writer is a published author of many books by many publishers. Let me make it clear: I don't have any connection with the author, but I have read some of his best books. Thus, if a person is making wrong edits, without reaching a consensus, we should not blame this author. The best way, indeed, is help with editing if you can, by beeing respectful. Thank you for understanding. Have a lovely day to all. British Spelling 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you get one "vote" in an AFD discussion, not multiple votes. You can comment as many times as you like, but you do not get to preface any further comments with another bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given.

Secondly, being "respectful" to an article topic does not mean always we have to keep an article. In actual fact, there are many situations where the most respectful thing we can do is to delete the article — having a Wikipedia article is actually a double-edged sword with much more negative consequences than people always necessarily realize. Our articles can be, and are, quite regularly edited to attack our article subjects, to invade their privacy with unsourced personal information about their sex lives, or to overwrite the whole damn thing with an article about some other person who happens to have the same name or a recipe for raisin bread — and if you think I'm making that up, I'm not, because every one of those things has really happened just within the past few weeks alone. And below a certain level of established prominence and sourceability, the risk of that happening outweighs our ability to control it — an inappropriate edit to Justin Trudeau will get caught and reverted within minutes, because a lot of people are watching his article, but an inappropriate edit to a minor person of low public visibility can linger in the article for months because nobody has seen it. So below a certain level of established prominence and sourceability, the most "respectful" thing we can do, the best way to protect them from that risk, is to not keep an article at all.

And finally, nobody actually believes your claim that you have no connection to the subject. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hot British's first edits were on Feb. 3 including this article's talk page. That edit was to change the library record information in a link provided by one of the blocked IP addressed linked to Moglica, the same one that had the hilarious conversation all from the one IP address. It seems like a strange edit so soon after registering the account. Hot British has made a higher range of edits aside from the Moglica article, although still limited. However, this editor's use of English is the same as the confirmed socks and IP addresses, not to mention the same type of "concerns" about the article, calling it "disrespectful" or calling for people to be "respectful". freshacconci (✉) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, It's so disturbing to read some comments above, when we, editors, can find some common grounds by editing the page. Do as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's find common ground Editors, as an editor, it's so disturbing to read some comments above, when we, volunteers, can find some common grounds by editing the page instead. Do as you wish! British Spelling 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Thanks you for your time.

What does this even mean? What common ground is there to find? An article, written by the subject and maintained by a series of sockpuppets, is up for deletion using some very reasonable criteria. The various sockpuppets speak of "respect" but where is the respect for other editors, who have to spend their volunteer time removing blatantly promotional material? Where's the respect for Wikipedia as a resource? What "common ground" would you have us find? Presumably, by common ground you mean we should leave you alone to do what you wish. Fortunately, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to regulate its articles. I encourage you to read What Wikipedia is Not. freshacconci (✉) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and for providing a very helpful link as well.British Spelling 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Keep it — a page supported with appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:B527:F60:3DE8:AD22 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it — a page supported with many appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.160.85 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per the above arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward- The diary of a hamster[edit]

Edward- The diary of a hamster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book. Unreliable reference(s) were used. XXN, 15:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Wellman, Victoria (2013-11-09). "Decades after death, hamster is family's muse". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     But while Edward might have failed as a pet, he did leave what the Elias call “an enduring mark on their collective psyche.” So much so that he’s the force behind the sibling duo’s new graphic novel, “The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990.”

     The book came about after Miriam performed a stage reading of Edward’s “journals” in London in 2011 and attracted a publisher’s attention. It positions the brother-and-sister team as translators and Edward as a disillusioned author who thinks there must be more to life than eating seeds and spinning on his wheel for Ezra and Miriam’s entertainment.

     ...

     But the Edward of the book, is whip-smart and hyperarticulate. He makes wry observations about life, punctuated with lofty existential theories. Of a cat, he writes, “He is just a dumb and senseless brute — he is allowed to roam free, for the bars are locked firmly on his mind.”

  2. Hannaham, James (2013-09-04). "Books Fall Picks 2013". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990–1990

     by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia • September 26, Blue Rider Press, 96 pp., $14.95

     Fans of Henri, the existentialist cat of Internet fame, will probably fall even harder for diarist Edward the Hamster's brief, pocket-sized belles lettres. As ill-fated as any pet hamster, the defiant Edward, unlike the others, "will not do tricks." Instead, he desperately seeks connection and meaning before his tiny shade passes through its painfully brief earthly journey. He goes on a 16-minute hunger strike, he contemplates murdering his ignorant cellmate, he ponders freedom and existence. "Death is the final cage," muses Edward. "None shall escape."

  3. Hoffert, Barbara (2013-04-01). "Nonfiction Previews, Sept. 2013, the Last Roundup: From Mary Beard to Eileen Rockefeller". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     Elia, Miriam & Ezra Elia. The Diary of Edward the Hamster, 1990–1990. Blue Rider: Penguin Group (USA). Sept. 2013. 96p. ISBN 9780399165979. pap. $14.95. HUMOR

     This wicked little book by a sister-and-brother team from Britain features a hamster in existential anguish as he whirls about his wheel: “They can take my freedom, but they will never take my soul.” Billed for fans of Tim Burton and Edward Gorey and actually quite funny, if you like dark.

  4. "Thebigread". Coventry Telegraph. 2012-08-25. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     Non-fiction THE DIARY OF EDWARD THE HAMSTER 1990-1990 BY MIRIAM ELIA AND ERZA ELIA (BOXTREE, £6.99) A COLLABORATION between brother and sister duo Miriam and Ezra Elia, The Diary Of Edward The Hamster 1990-1990 is an 80-page journal written through the eyes of the titular rodent.

     Described as a "deliciously dark gothic giftbook, for pet lovers and anguished existentialists of all ages", the book is a celebration of the short-lived hamster's life.

     Interspersed with black and white drawings of our furry hero by Ezra Elia, this is a genuinely funny personal diary containing entries such as Edward's thoughts on the meaning of his life, his views towards his owners and his joy when he finally gets a friend to cohabit with, who he then promptly conspires to murder.

     A lovely stocking filler for animal lovers or philosophers alike, this is perfect for those who have ever wondered about the possible inner-workings of a hamster's mind.

  5. Clements, Toby (2012-11-24). "Hamsters in love". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     My favourite autobiography this year comes from a hamster. In The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990–1990, edited by Miriam and Ezra Elia (Macmillan, GBP6.99), Edward relates his life story in gnomic, existential entries. May 5 reads: "Why Exist?" May 7: "The vet came today. He touched me. Apparently I am a woman." It does not end on a high note, but his love for Camilla (the other hamster) is heartbreaking.

  6. Raymond, Ken (2013-12-08). "Quirky gift books". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     “The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990” by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia (Blue Rider Press, 96 pages, in stores)

     This book is perfect for three types of people: pet lovers, fans of dark comedy and angsty existentialists struggling to escape life’s prison. Then again, maybe it’s only good for the first two kinds of people. The third might find it pointless to read a book, even a thin one like this.

     As the title suggests, the book purports to be the diary of a hamster who lived a short and unhappy life locked in a cage, enduring daily torments. He mourns the fact that no one remembers the six-month anniversary of his acceptance into the family, tries to avoid contact with his owners and tries to figure out why he has such a miserable life.

     Edward is nothing if not defiant. ...

  7. "Book Notes". Cape Cod Times. 2013-10-06. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     Three new books take unorthodox approaches to the usually sober subject of philosophy.

     "The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990" (Blue Rider Press) by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia is the illustrated musings of an unusually gloomy rodent who questions whether his cage is of his own making and goes on a 16-minute hunger strike.

  8. Koswan, Susan (2014-01-25). "Translated from the original Hamster". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     Welcome to Edward's world, asking the big questions about the meaning of life, love, friendship, captivity and more.

     In 83 short, but intense, illustrated pages, how can you not fall in love with this thoughtful, morose little rodent? Certainly, everyone I shared this book with enjoyed it.

     Miriam Elia, a British artist, and her brother, Ezra, have "translated" Edward's diary "from the original Hamster," drawing from memories of "an unusually gloomy hamster" named Edward they had the privilege to care for, but who has since gone to the great hamster wheel in the sky.

  9. Bancroft, Colette (2013-09-22). "Dreamed of in Our Philosophy". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

     The article notes:

     The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990 (Blue Rider Press) by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia is the illustrated musings of an unusually gloomy rodent who questions whether his cage is of his own making and goes on a 16-minute hunger strike.

  10. Mufson, Beckett (2013-10-08). "This Existential Hamster Helps You Contemplate Life". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

      The article notes:

      Everyone experiences the occasional spiritual crisis, but saying you feel trapped in life can be an understatement when you're literally a hamster in a cage.

      Such is the life of Edward the Hamster, the titular character of Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia's quirky book, The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990. Between boycotting his wheel and going on the occasional hunger strike, Edward experiences the combined existential struggles of Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre.

  11. Armitstead, Claire (2015-09-22). "The flyaway success of the Ladybird art prank". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.

      The article notes:

      “We set up Dung Beetle Limited as a joke,” she laughs, “and it’s become a corporation with a ‘fulfilment centre’ to send out the books.” By we, she means herself and her older brother, Ezra, who is cited as co-author, and with whom she created a previous hit: The Diary of Edward the Hamster, 1990 to 1990. Their childhood memories of owning a hamster were the basis of this mordant story of an abused pet, which began life as a satire for Radio 4 before becoming a Sony-nominated animation and a book. It is a memorial to the suffering of the only pet the siblings were allowed growing up in north London, when they would really have preferred a dog. “Wednesday May 5: Why exist?” writes Edward. “Wednesday May 7: Two of them came today, dragged me out of my cage and put me in some kind of improvised maze made out of books and old toilet rolls.”

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, Cunard has done his thorough work and established notability. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note that I've moved it to its correct title, The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990 and de-orphaned it, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh oh, I see from MOS:DASH that an en dash is required here. Fixing the redirect and page move. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done some further improving. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, plenty of sources that discuss the book, thanks to Cunard for the listing above. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Dubost[edit]

Stephan Dubost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obvious self promotion (e.g., "update of my CV"), but besides, I'm not finding much of anything source-wise. The language is French, and they work in Australia, so there's not much excuse for not finding really any sources at all. Overall seems to be a mid level government employee of no particular import that I can tell. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D1AA:6D70:6060:44B9 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Creator's only edits are to that page, with edit summaries like "update of my CV", as mentioned previously. Definite case of WP:COI and self-promotion. bojo | talk 15:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quick English source check doesn't bring up anything (and if he were notable and in Australia - should be some English sources). Position described doesn't seem notable.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 31 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) 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

عمرئ[edit]

عمرئ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Appears to be an honorific title bestowed by Jamia Darussalam, and only duplicates what little content is already in the main article. The anglicized Oomeri seems to be a fairly common last name as well, and searching for sources is just a rabbit hole of non-English articles of dubious relevance. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not pass WP:V. And while WP:NOT can be hard to interpret objectively at times, this is pretty clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 07:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How is the term considered prestigious in the whole Muslim world it it's only granted by a single school? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. MezzoMezzo's remark about that single school demonstrates the lack of notability. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Redirected to Pink (singer) by nominator before opening the AfD. If you wish to delete the redirect, please nominate it at WP:RfD instead. (non-admin closure) ansh666 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P!nk Live 2017[edit]

P!nk Live 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page should not exist, per WP:NTOUR. A string of summer music festivals does not equate to a concert tour by a recording artist. No sources to prove said-tour in-question exists. livelikemusic talk! 12:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Livelikemusic: it appears that the page is already redirected and that you tagged the artist page with an AfD tag. bojo | talk 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Bojo1498: Weird, as I wasn't even on her page when I listed the deletion. livelikemusic talk! 13:16, 31 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) 02:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Singh (actor)[edit]

Pritam Singh (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article was deleted less than a year ago for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I am unconvinced that things have changed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still no major roles or significant coverage. I was the previous nominator and tagged the article for speedy deletion but for whatever reason it was removed; that's wikibureaucracy for you I guess... Opencooper (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete still no actual claim to real notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no improvement on previous Spiderone 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved (film)[edit]

Unsolved (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, no evidence of notability BOVINEBOY2008 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Indeed seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. bojo | talk 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Once the movie begins filming it will become more notable.Vincelord (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This doesn't look to be a movie, but rather a scripted TV series through USA Network. I'm going to move the article to Unsolved (TV series) and I would endorse deleting the (film) redirect and just redirecting this article to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_USA_Network#In_development. It's reasonable enough to list it as in development considering that it's got some press and if/when it comes to series it can be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually moved it to Unsolved (USA Network TV series). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancy Antony[edit]

Ancy Antony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Winner of a minor award, with virtually no presence on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete awards are not significant enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venant Nkurunziza[edit]

Venant Nkurunziza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable researcher, claim to be a minister-in-exile is not supported by the ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if his role as "minister in exile" could be sourced, being part of an unrecognized government with no power is generally not a sign to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per two above. Claim to be a minister-in-exile is not supported. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. We also almost always delete such shadow cabinet members. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siltanen and Partners[edit]

Siltanen and Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A7 was declined with the rationale that: "maybe not "Big Brother" or "Get A Mac" but Apple ads tend to be somewhat iconic". While I agree that Apple ads do tend to get notoriety, I don't think all of them are significant enough to pass A7. However, regardless, searches turned up very little about this ad firm, most of it either listings or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on an advertising agency. I don't see the relevance of the Apple ad: notability is not inherited from work involving a firm's principal two years before establishing this firm. More relevant could be the firm's work indicated in the brief AdWeek piece, but I am not seeing more than passing mentions, nothing to indicate more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG, SPAM, CORPDEPTH etc Borders on a PROD. South Nashua (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Dyble[edit]

Stuart Dyble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was deprodded after the addition of a YouTube link. Other than some trivial mentions and press releases, can't find enough in-depth coverage of this individual to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable PR officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article at first comes off as complete original research. So, in looking for reliable sources I found that there is a lot that mentions him and the companies that he's been with but because notability is not inherited I find that he does not pass for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BLP, WP:NOTABLE. This is Paul (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rian Antonelli[edit]

Rian Antonelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable stand-up comedian and actor. Basic searches for sources did not pull up anything showing that he has received sufficent coverage in reliable sources to show that he passes notability. The creator (whose name implies this might be autobiographical) has been given opportunity to address the concerns but they simply deleted all tags/advice without addressing the concerns, so I am bringing this to a formal deletion discussion. Mabalu (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We just started working on this page today, please give us more time to complete this article on Rian Antonelli. Clearly it isn't complete yet. Things take time, please understand.

Thank you, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriano2591 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a new article, I would suggest the article be given time to develop and further references added. Noting the relevant recommendations regarding bringing new articles straight to AfD "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Allangdall (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Allan[reply]

— Allangdall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - If I may put forth my humble opinion, I believe the page isnt suitable for Wikipedia yet. The page seems to have been directly created without following the advised procedure of making a sandbox article first and then sending it for review. Furthermore, the article is written in an almost-autobiographical way, such as the details of 'early life' that are without any references. An article, howsoever detailed or formally created it may be, requires references to add to its credibility. The "Rainbow Doritos trolling" reference may not be sufficient. If the page-creator and/or contributor is either involved with the person mentioned in the article or the person himself, the best course of action would be to copy the information to your user sandbox and working on it for how ever long you want without the burden of a deadline, keeping in mind a neutral point of view. If you feel like the article is still eligible for staying up, references from reliable sources could be added within the deadline. But as it stands, I'm leaning towards deletion. I say this from personal experience since the first article I created had been deleted too, but it had been a great learning experience for me. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 12:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In the editor's own words: "We are trying to build his online brand and online presence." I have no objection to this page being userfied or done via a draft or Articles for Creation, but given that the creator has just said pretty explicitly that it is an advertising/promotional page, and that the subject NEEDS his "online brand building up" (paraphrasing), it seems pretty clear that we have a problem article here. Unfortunately, it seems a clear cut case of Too Soon. I will note that I do believe that Adriano2591 has made their edits in good faith, but hasn't really grasped that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, but a record of persons and things whose notability has been proven and established enough that they can be shown to merit a Wikipedia article. Mabalu (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia isn't the place to "build [an] online brand and online presence". - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is meant to have articles that have recieved coverage in reliable sources, not to be used as a viehecle to prompt such coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform to help emerging entertainers build their "brand and online presence" — passage of a specific notability criterion comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability get to where they need to be, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON at best. It's not "use Wikipedia to help you promote yourself while you try to make it big", it's "make it big and then you'll get a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, we should wait to see if this person can build up their notability before creating an article about them. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This falls well below Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes by altitude[edit]

List of lakes by altitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Entire article appears to be original research and/or copied directly from www.highestlakes.com [13], a non-verifiable website (or its mirrors). NoGhost (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR. Article topic is likely to encyclopedic so no prejudice to its recreation in future. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Singh[edit]

Shubham Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable politician, PRODs and Speedies (as an unsourced BLP) keep being repeatedly removed, but a search for sources does not bring up anything. The name is not uncommon, but when I search with additional keywords (ie, Janta) to try and narrow down I don't find anything. Not sure if it is really speedy-able, hence bringing to discussion. Please be careful when looking for sources, as there are hits for other Shubham Singhs who should not be confused with this person (ie, criminals, gangsters, murderers...) Mabalu (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails BASIC GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN.FITINDIA (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extremely low level political party operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Being2shubham which makes no credible claim to notability: neither passing one's exams nor campaigning for a political party are anything other than mundane and trivial. Fails all biographical notability criteria. CSD A7 is appropriate and should not be impeded by disruptive editing by the article creator (and likely subject). AllyD (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low level politician lacking rs coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep comments have put forward no evidence of notability. Simple claims of notability are insufficient. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Daniel Vladimirovich[edit]

Prince Daniel Vladimirovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

CSD-Hoax repeatedly removed by sock/duck farm. Subject does not appear in any of the references provided. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 09:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't have even been marked for being deleted on the first place based on wikipedia's guidelines and you should've opened a discussion, instead of marking it for speedy delete. The article has creditable sources and It does not violate any of the wikipedia guidelines. Russian aid (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)— User:Russian aid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would also refer you to pages of the other survivors of the Romove family, and their resources like Prince Andrew Romanov which is a very good example. These people are notable but because of the conditions and exile there are not a lot of news and articles on them. So I think we should keep their name and legacy alive.Russian aid (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even assuming that the article is accurate, it shows no notability. There is no credible claim to notability, so it probably could be speedied under A7. Beyond this there are no reliable sources. Even more cringe worthy it uses Wikipedia as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Even if it's not a WP:G3 hoax, it's WP:A7 no claims of notability -- notability is literally not inherited -- but it smells like a hoax. Sources don't check out. No explanation for why "Arya Ouskouian" is used or sources found for "Ouskouian"+romanov+"prince", "Nikoo Khosravi"+romanov, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Do Not Delete He is as notable as any other living Romaoff family member, so if you think he should be on wikipedia then I would argue than we should remove all current princes and princes of the Romanoff family! Also as stated in the article he's a human rights activist which I think is notable and contributive to the society.— User:2600:8802:2101:a000:89de:1809:b838:44a0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only the delete !votes are grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Kurykh (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Chess Festival[edit]

Hell Chess Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:GNG. Unremarkable film festival lacking significant independent coverage. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete: You can delete it if you want, I just thought it was relevant because this Festival is included in the List of most important international festivals of the spanish govern:^[1] Ludolfo (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete: I was journalist and in fact I attended the Hell Chess Festival in two different countries, because this event in 2017 was developed in an international way, Malta and Spain. And it lasted three months what is a remarkable effort. Very good reviews too. As I said, it must be an article included at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibooks (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG/WP:EVENT. Tried looking for Spanish language sources, too, (though "Hell Chess" seems to be the title across languages, as far as I could see). May just be a matter of it being too soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Family of Donald Trump. And merge relevant content from history, subject to consensus. The "keep" opinions tend to be on the weak side here.  Sandstein  06:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trump[edit]

Robert Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG per WP:NOTINHERITED. Same rationale for his wife Blaine Trump. — JFG ^talk 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect - Also considering this is but a stub, if worthy of mention, may be better merged as part of a more general Trump-related article, unless a particular event makes this person directly notable. PaleoNeonate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading other comments here, I have changed my vote from "delete" to "redirect" which appears more appropriate. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Probably better because he is Donald Trump's brother and notability is not inherited. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG - subject of dedicated coverage in Town & Country Magazine, New York Magazine, and WKXP, coupled with two more incidental mentions in the New York Times and a Simon & Schuster-published book. Article is a stub, but stub-status does not preclude notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep:The independant sources should be enough to pass WP:GNG, regardless of reason.Burning Pillar (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: The sibling of a US President is worthy of a page, however it needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees999 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]