The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cashel Palace Hotel[edit]

Cashel Palace Hotel (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)

unnotable and lacking sources Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This topic has had extensive in-depth coverage from national sources like the Irish Times, Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent, the latter of which calls it, "synonymous with Co. Tipperary and its renowned bloodstock industry" and the first calls it "architecturally important." [1][2][3][4]. These were found in a few seconds. Was WP:BEFORE followed? Lacking sources is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is this a serious nomination? A restaurant once awarded a Michelin star two years in a row with all ensuing publicity in the pré-internet era. The Banner talk 05:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not the best written article, but clearly makes a claim to notability. There is no notability guideline for restaurants but if we had one, it seems logical that a prior award of a Michelin star (as supported by article references) would make the cut. A Train^talk 15:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Michelin star is enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:N per available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Yamazaki[edit]

Ami Yamazaki (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)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:NACTOR, or WP:MUSICBIO. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands. I am happy to be corrected by a Japanese reader but none of the article's sources appear reliable to me. Nota bene for anybody attempting to assess these sources at the office or on the couch next to a spouse: Attackers.net is a porn website. You're welcome. A Train^talk 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This misses the mark on several guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:OR, and WP:BLP are all three problematic. The WP:LINKROT in the external references and therefore verifiable credibility are reason enough to call this article into question. I don't see a larger firm that this particular entry could be Merged under. Perhaps this should go to WP:AfC level. Ventric (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability criteria across the board. No reliable sources cover this subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom bolema[edit]

Tom bolema (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 can't find any reliable sources that even mention this person, much less discuss them in depth. Thus, this article is not verifiable, meaning it should be deleted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No claim of anything and no sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete does not meet GNG, ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum- reference added below does not address subject in depth. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There was an earlier article, Tom Bolema (note better capitalization) with the same creator, deleted in 2010 — not per a deletion discussion, though, so that part's all right. But no reliable sources and it's clearly an autobio, compare the subject, the username, and the user's sandbox. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete – no claim to notability PriceDL (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article lacks any context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator seems to have tried to reference this article, for what it's worth. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks a marginally notable person: no time to fix the article right now (and it needs to be moved to Tom Bolema, capital B) but these look interesting: elected Green councillor, former California Green Coordinating Committee member, prison library work, Organised concert including "The Butchers" at homeless camp (the 1987 LA Time article), retirement appreciation in San Quentin News. PamD 10:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Modified 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This article does not meet the usual: WP:GNG, WP:OR, etc. It flaunts even the WP:BLP1E to a ridiculous degree. This does not an article maketh. Ventric (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original creator of the article is assumed by this editor to be the subject himself. WP:COISELF is obviously trodden upon here. If this article was written about his work in the penal system and his previous music/organizing experience added as additional biographical information, there may be an article here. I cannot find substantive changes he has made in WP:SECONDARY sources to support such an WP:AfC. This article should be deleted, and (perhaps) properly created with the subjects name as a proper noun: Tom Bolema. _{(The man didn't even capitalize his own name....)} Users Bishonen and PamD nailed it. Ventric (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no WP:RS covers this subject. Subject is not notable by any Wikipedia standards. Fails WP:ANYBIO, GNG, and BLP. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mira (AK-84). Yunshui ^雲_水 11:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Emery[edit]

Robert M. Emery (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 the notability guideline for military personnel. It's a great honor to have a ship named after you and those of us from the US are certainly all proud and grateful for this man's service. However, since the naming of that particular class of ship is designated to be winners of the Distinguished Service Cross and our cut-off for presumed notability is at the Medal of Honor, a higher award, without further reason, that alone is not enough to show notability. It would need to be shown that this person would meet ANYBIO, and it does not appear he does. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be redirected to Mira (AK-84), the ship named after this person. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about WP:GNG? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mira (AK-84), the ship named after the subject, per LaundryPizza03. I'm slightly shocked that someone for whom a ship and a military barracks were named after doesn't have any significant discussion in sources, but after having a search I found nothing. A Train^talk 15:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mira (AK-84). I strongly disagree with the nom - not meeting the SOLDIER cutoff is merely lack of presumption of notability not an indication of non-notability and having two significant objects (a barracks and a ship) named after you would actually be quite a presumption of notability. HOWEVER, as A Train, I was unable to locate any solid sourcing here to show GNG. Worthwhile to redirect to the ship and/or barracks. Content already seems to be in Mira (AK-84) and Emery Barracks so not much to merge.Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've mentioned before elsewhere, there seems to be a "the world turned upside down" effect happening or having happened with the SNGs, where they're being considered to be a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "meets GNG but fails SOLDIER = not notable", and that is a genuinely worrying thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mira (AK-84), as above; oddly absent in sources, but 'most notable' in relation to the ship named for him. Perhaps a hatnote to the barracks should be added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - using the search "Tuffy Emory"[sic?], I find a bit more material about him at MIT, but I am not sure I disagree that the page should redirect. I'm of the opinion that obituaries and memorials alone don't necessarilly give us enough to write a NPOV article about a subject, especially as these memorials might say more about the influence of the father than about the life of the son. One article on newspapers.com about his death ([5]) says he was a champion lightweight wrestler at MIT, but I can't find coverage that confirms or discusses his college career. If he were a national or regional champion, he would probably have a lot more coverage, so I'm not sure what is going on there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – has had two notable things named after him so I assume there's significant coverage of him somewhere even if we can't find it. Might suggest redirection if only one were named after him, but there are two equally appropriate targets. PriceDL (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 901[edit]

Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 901 (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)

Not notable aviation incident. Runway overruns are common. No need for an independent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not only does this easily pass WP:GNG, also passes essay WP:AIRCRASH - "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." Major jetliners such as DC-10s as this one was overrunning runways are not common and they should not happen, thus these uncommon incidents are notable to both the aviation industry and the public. --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH. This was a serious incident resulting in over 100 injuries and substantial damage to a widebody jet. A full NTSB Aircraft Accident Report was produced (there are usually less than 20 per year, sometimes less than 10, always focused on the most serious aviation incidents). The NTSB recommendations drove the FAA to mandate pilot training and safety changes. Not sure how this is not notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to WP:AIRCRASH.Bingobro (Chat) 14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above - Meets WP:AIRCRASH as well as WP:GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Close per SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porch Pirates[edit]

Porch Pirates (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)

If Wikipedia were to have an article on this topic, it would need to be a rewrite at Package theft. This article is marketing copy from a personal security equipment company. Υπογράφω (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio confirmed. Eventually with the infringing content, there is not enough context to identify the subject. When the infringing content is removed, the article is short enough to satisfy A1. There are no non-infringing revisions. I have tagged this for G12. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a copyvio already, and then the article creator (and, I presume, the source website owner) added a CC license to the source. So I don't think G12 is applicable. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even with the copyright licence, this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all (the licensed content is from a blog). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:STARTOVER. This is an advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Only the dictionary definition appears to be reliably sourced. I'm not yet convinced that package theft needs a stand-alone article. Even if it does, this article would need a fundamental rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Licensed content from unreliable blog of security firm garbled with passing mention of the term in some sources in order to promote neologism apparently invented by them. This can't be included on Wikipedia per core WP:NOT policy and no evidence this concept exists in mainstream body of literature –Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gene93k. The article inarguably sucks at the moment. Unencyclopedic in tone and generally full of fluff. A fluff-ectomy would kill the patient. If the NYT editor hadn't been so tickled by the term "porch pirate" as to include it in the headline, we would have speedied this. A Train^talk 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn See comment below. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Light[edit]

Harry Light (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)

Not seeing evidence of notability here. Sources are only brief mentions or not reliable sources. I couldn't find anything better when I searched. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Light is a major figure in the history of professional wrestling in the United States, being one of the founders of the cartel that controlled professional wrestling for several decades. Light is in particular a key figure in the history of professional wrestling in Detroit, given that he "controlled grappling in the Detroit area for nearly 20 years" and produced one of the most highly-watched television programs in Detroit. McPhail (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I fail to believe that he is a non-notable figure. References, especially those in the book on the history of pro-wrestling are reliable sources. There are wrestler articles out there that can't claim notability, but this isn't one of them. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm actually surprised how well sourced the article is given how hard it is to find wrestling sources from his era. McPhail lays out a good case for notability and he passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first source, which the article is based almost entirely on, is ok. But the issue is that the only good one. The rest are trivial mentions or not reliable source. Wikipedia generally requires multiple good sources. However, if sources are difficult to come by for this topic during this period of history, perhaps I have misjudged this one. A bit of a borderline call anyway, so I'll withdraw my nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obasi Igwe[edit]

Obasi Igwe (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 person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. The citation level is not really all that good for political science. He is a respectable working political scientist, but nothing suggests that he has reached the level of significant impact in the field that the notability guidelines for academics require, and nothing else in his work suggests notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Sufficient in depth coverage to sustain article. gidonb (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Mentioned only peripherally in the one newspaper story used as a reference, not good enough for WP:GNG. And while "Politics and Globe Dictionary" has quite a respectable number of publications (162 in Google scholar) we would need more than a single well-cited publication to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NACADEMIC and weak claims on "respectable number of publications" under WP:PROF#C1 nor achieves any signification impact in the field he practices. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sousa Dias[edit]

Sousa Dias (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 can't find the slightest indication that this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Admittedly I'm hampered by being restricted to searching in English only, but I don't see that he would pass any of the NPROF criteria based on the checks I've done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a professor of philosophy who has published books is not in and of itself enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any reviews of his book. That may be merely because of the language barrier, but without them I don't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And similarly, although his book has over 100 citations in Google scholar, it's not by itself enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Sonic[edit]

Soma Sonic (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've done my best but can't find enough substantive content to justify keeping this article. The most significant coverage I can find are two reviews on Exclaim.ca ([6] and [7], one for each of their albums) and I just don't think it's enough. I've checked AllMusic, Google, GNews, GBooks, and Highbeam and come up dry.

That being said there may be electronic music RSes that I've missed, so I am happy to withdraw if anything substantive is located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews from New York City[edit]

List of Jews from New York City (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)

Still fails WP:LISTN despite being a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD. Most of the items in the list do not have sources indicating that they are members, and we already have an article named Jews in New York City. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is why we have a category system, folks. Never can hope to be complete and just as poorly cited as version one was. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally thousands of Jewish people linked to New York City. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article recognizes the accomplishments of over 275 people. It is encyclopedic and meets the guidelines for Wikipedia. (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 275 people, NINE sources in the article. I'm tired of 'keep it because they're famous' articles with a paucity of sources here. Improve or don't bother with these articles. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Corky 23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hart (basketball)[edit]

Matt Hart (basketball) (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only some WP:ROUTINE coverage and local mentions. Also WP:TOOSOON for WP:NHOOPS as he is currently with a fairly low level league and is in his first pro year, would likely get more coverage in one of the European leagues. It seems his most significant depth of coverage article is this one from The Buffalo News, however, he was only covered in that paper because he was once a high school athlete there and seems to fail the intent of WP:NHSPHSATH (local coverage of a high school player/former player and signings/transfers/trades are also commonly considered routine). Yosemiter (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not seeing coverage to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Welinder[edit]

Shelby Welinder (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)

None of the sources seems to be independent, and only one of them has more than two sentences about her. She doesn't seem to meet any relevant notability guidelines. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Indeed, the sources don't even verify the content, not that any of them are reliable independent sources anyway. This is obviously an advitorial. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing indicates her work is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nikolai Volkov[edit]

Murder of Nikolai Volkov (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)

While tragic, this is simply coverage of a murder. As per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Perhaps one could recreate a page about the person, Nikolai Volkov, but I am not sure if he is sufficiently notable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. pages seems a news report/cover. Suggest delete as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Fortune[edit]

Tyrell Fortune (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)

Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet the notability standards for MMA fighters or sportspeople. He never competed at the highest level of his sport--only at junior or university competitions. Not sure how he was an 8 time high school American (an undocumented claim) while winning only 2 state high school championships.Sandals1 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. Does not meet WP:NMMA.PRehse (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Blackpool[edit]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Blackpool (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)

Following the demolition of Walter Robinson Court, Elizabeth Court and Churchill Court, this list article is reduced to effectively comprise three entries: the Blackpool Tower and two theme park rides. Given that there are no plans to build any structures of significant height in Blackpool beyond this, I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not notable for these reasons. Beeperbeeper5 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. There's only really one tall structure in Blackpool, regardless of how many rollercoasters and rides they build. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article should not be deleted because, at a minimum it can be merged/redirected to a larger area list of tallest buildings. It is quite normal to have/keep lists of tallest buildings. Also, it doesn't terribly matter that two buildings are gone; they can still be described as former structures, and I don't know that 5 or 3 items is too few to have a list about, anyhow. Having list-articles is good for limiting rampant coverage of individual buildings in separate articels. We don't want to force creation of separate articles in lieu of having buildings covered as individual items in a list. Please get it together and figure where you want this material merged to, if you really hate this list-article. Then whether it should be merged or not is a function of how long that other list is, perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's just one of many similar lists in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom. One option would be to merge the Blackpool list with the List of tallest buildings and structures in Preston and perhaps other lists to create List of tallest buildings and structures in Lancashire (currently a redlink), which could then have one section for Blackpool and one section for Preston, with no net gain in any quest to remove information from Wikipedia. I fail to see why the Blackpool information should be simply deleted. I fail to see why merger should be necessary, though I don't terribly oppose it. I'll "vote" Keep for now, would update my vote if someone does some work.

By the way, if Walter Robinson Court has in fact been demolished, then someone should update List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement which maybe now should drop it, and perhaps update List of tallest destroyed buildings and structures in the United Kingdom which maybe now should add it. --Doncram (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There really is very little to be gained in this article. The Blackpool Tower already is mentioned in the tallest UK structures list, and the two rides at Blackpool Pleasure Beach are already referred to within that article. The three demolished structures are not notable, almost every town and city has or had high rise apartment blocks, and the Blackpool ones were comparatively short. Anonymoussmith (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Anonymoussmith. Aside from its eponymous tower, Blackpool does not have a significant or notable association with high-rise buildings and structures, and this is demonstrated by the small number of entries on this list (which are all presently covered in other articles on high-rise structures in the UK). Eloquai (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Networks[edit]

Aria Networks (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)

Though the article was kept at a 2010 AfD, this was based on one article in The Express (which I've added), a press release and an 'article' on an independent financila advisor company website. I can't imagine that would take it past today's WP:NCORP notability threshold. I can find nothing else of substance online about the company, other than press releases, the usual company directory profiles and the occasional blog. The company claims to be a pioneer but I can't see any independent proof. This company is operating in the digital age so I'd expect to be able to find coverage if it existed. All this, combined with the continual attempts by IPs to re-write it advertorially, had led me to think it's better the article is deleted. fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yuppp. That express article is mostly quotes from the company. Not independent. Fails NORG and WP:NOTPROMO too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Only run of the mill press realeases. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Pamma Ram Mela[edit]

Dada Pamma Ram Mela (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)

Notability per WP:NEVENT uncertain for me. Was going to A7, but good coverage is found in those sources. Appears to be an insignificant local event, but if it were anything else it would pass WP:GNG probably. The page creator has not done a good job of explaining its significance. Bringing here for discussion and community consideration. !dave 13:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G5, see Vijaysuthar008877. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As Women's football in Liechtenstein. Sandstein 12:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein women's national football team[edit]

Liechtenstein women's national football team (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 clearly states there's no team and hardly any plans to create one. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't exist. GiantSnowman 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – doesn't exist, not enough meaningful content to merge to Football in Liechtenstein. PriceDL (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the article states, the national federation is working to develop a team, and the current article is the best holding spot for the four different youth women's national teams who have played friendlies, international tournaments or are scheduled to play. "not enough meaningful content" is not a valid reason to delete. That is an issue of "article needs improvement and to be expanded." If "not enough meaningful content" a reason people want to have for deletion, this rational should be put forward in a en.wp wide RfC given this would pretty much result in the removal of almost all stubs. --LauraHale (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LauraHale: I said delete because it's not notable because it doesn't exist, not because it doesn't include enough meaningful content. The lack of content is why I'm not suggesting it not be merged to Football in Liechtenstein, which is probably the most sensible place for information on attempts to develop a women's team to exist. PriceDL (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect - the simple fact is that this team doesn't exist, no senior women's international team from Liechtenstein has ever played any sort of formal match, they are now mentioned at Football in Liechtenstein, so a redirect there would probably seem best as a plausible search term. However:

1. No reason why junior teams shouldn't have their own article, especially those that have played competitive matches, so not sure why this is being used as a holding pen. I think at this stage the U-16 team is the same as the U-17 team given when they both competed, but I see no reason not to have Liechtenstein women's national under-17 football team and Liechtenstein women's national under-19 football team, as viable standalone articles.
2. The Background and Development section should be moved to Football in Liechtenstein as well sourced prose, but nonetheless prose that is more closely related to the women's game in Liechtenstein as a sport rather than the national team specifically. I will look to do this shortly. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved relevant sourced prose to Football in Liechtenstein where I think it is more relevant and where it is appropriate that content discussing a team which does not exist should be held. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Football in Liechtenstein#Women's national football team, per Fenix down. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Women's football in Liechtenstein (or similar) There's enough information and interest for there to be an article on just women's football. I agree that the name of the article is a problem, but that's easily fixed by renaming. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Mega.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: @Megalibrarygirl:, do we really need to split Football in Liechtenstein at this point in time? Not really sure there is sufficient content in that article to warrant one article on men's football and one article on women's football. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough content to justify it's own article without bloating the other but doesn't really matter that much. Why not? We're not paper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not really how things are done. There are only a couple of articles specifically on women's football in individual countries, the sport is normally documented without the need to split by gender. Here we seem to want to split a four paragraph article into a couple of two paragraph articles. Not saying that there won't be a need in the future, but just don't see the need here now. More importantly, such a split actually serves to make it more difficult for readers to find out about women's football in Liechtenstein. As Template:Football in Europe templates shows, the conventional heading is simply "Football in ...". Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one editor I know who was heavily into Russian topics and a curious interest in Bhutan and that was Russavia. It's highly unusual for an editor to have a major interest in both. Just saying. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, I suppose the redirect from the original title should be deleted. The very fact that Liechtenstein is on the list of women's national association football teams seems misleading. It also seems the whole list should be revised. Turkmenistan is the first link I clicked on... WikiArticleEditor (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kepp with new name. As long as there is no widely accepted national team, the article should be presented in more general terms. It certainly contains a lot of useful information and is well sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Megalibrarygirl, as there is apparently no recognized national team. The topic of Women's football in lichtenstein certainly seems notable, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename/merge per recommendation of Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as Women's football in Liechtenstein, per similar articles for other European countries. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Hakeem[edit]

Amer Hakeem (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)

Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In 2018, the player will play in S.League, it should pass WP:NFOOTY. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we cannot preduict the future and so should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not satisfying WP:NSOCCER--Safe My Edit (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Evening[edit]

Nice Evening (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 talk show lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the most well-known talk-show in Armenia. Furthermore, it is hosted by two of the prominent musicians in Armenia. Literally everyone in Armenia talks about the show after the new episode airs. Harut111 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Harut111: If what you're saying is true there should be a lot of coverage of the show in Armenian secondary sources. Are you able to produce some news sources/reviews from Armenian reliable sources talking about the show? I'd look for them myself, but I know zero Armenian. Brustopher (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brustopher: Sure. Here are some. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] If the hosts are Aram and Garik (the most famous ones in Armenia), it simply cannot but have many sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Harut111 and the sources provided above. Brustopher (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we going to finish the discussion? It has been more that 10 days... Harut111 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flawed arguments on the keep side QEDK and Eloquai, please read WP:INHERITED) but no one has specifically rebutted Thinker78's sources (or the last-minute additions from CASSIOPEIA) which seem to be robust enough to support a BLP. A Train^talk 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Riley[edit]

Rich Riley (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)

A man with a job. Unreliable. Article seems to be a result of COI, sockpuppetry, subsequent removal/redirecting and subsequent restoring. The Banner talk 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD is appropriate for this. We've played this cat and mouse game many times before with determined COI/SPAs. It's been up for discussion before. The same person(s) (as per behaviour) regularly try to revert the decisions formed by consensus by established editors - often with sticking in a cheeky dig too, perhaps out of spite or perhaps out of deception by distraction (e.g. in this instance the editor who'd never used this site before said 'removed sockpuppet edit'). I've just undone their edits as there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (other than that associated with the company's take-over) of the subject and this is just another attempt to circumvent. Rayman60 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but deserves the community to suffer from this? Why not protecting, salting or what ever other trick that is possible? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the time is there, and the decision is to delete it might be a good idea to salt this article to avoid the sockpuppetry, cat-and-mouse and other games played in the past. The Banner talk 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:GNG, topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject^[1][2][3], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable CEO. Coverage is in passing, relating to the company and / or WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a CV-hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. And, per WP:SPIP, in my opinion, " people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter" (see the references I included in my comment above). Also, per WP:ATD, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman. Coverage does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. Remember that decisions are taken by consensus so other comments should be read and comment on as well if they are against your opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep CEO of a very notable company. Obvious keep is obvious. Riley has been included in honarary lists and help important positions thereto. Reads neutral and I see no cause to delete. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited, so the fact that he works for "a very notable company", as you state it, has no influence on his notability. The Banner talk 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes as much sense as saying the Pope doesn't gain notability for leading the Catholic Church. The subjectly is inherently notable for holding the most important position of a notable company and I'm just adding on to the preceding support, as evidenced. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject has received coverage in a range of reputable news sources; admittedly not as much as other tech bosses but enough to take him over the line of notability in my opinion. I also agree with User:QEDK above - his role as a CEO might not be notable in itself, but as the CEO of a major technology company (which has recently become one of Apple's largest corporate acquisitions), his position is not inconsequential either. Eloquai (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets wP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Reliable source found here- [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardic[edit]

Guardic (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 got nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could also not find anything - Shame. Looks like a fun game Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color Lines[edit]

Color Lines (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've searched...and come up with nada. Coin945 (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find nothing either: No reviews on GameRankings either. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss (video game)[edit]

Abyss (video game) (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'm getting bupkis. I'm convinced it exists, but the literature doesn't have much to say about it unfortunately. Coin945 (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – some reviews in print sources but fairly trivial. It's possible more exist that aren't findable online but I doubt enough to make it notable PriceDL (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rivet#Installation. Content is still visible in history if anyone wishes to merge or copy to draft (with attribution of course). ansh666 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bucking bar[edit]

Bucking bar (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 article currently consists of an unsourced dictionary definition, and any additional future content could easily be included in Rivet or Rivet gun. The topic has no significance outside of its role in the riveting process. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It seems like this is dlthewave's payback for me mentioning that I felt Stephen Paddock should not be given an article. I posted comments about thinking it didn't seem right that a murderer like Stephen Paddock be considered notable and be given an article - now with an expanded personal life section - versus someone like Heather Meyer who was killed at the Charlottesville Rally back in August. The user has edited articles on both the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally and the Las Vegas Shooting article. I've expressed my opinion that victims should be notable because focusing on criminals gives the criminal more attention and incentives further violence. In regards to the Bucking Bar article which I created after being surprised there was no article on Wikipedia about it, I have discussed with someone in the past on Wikipedia who agreed that since there is likely an article for Hammer, which is a tool which could be made of many different things, there should be an article for a Bucking Bar. I actually didn't know if there was an article for Hammer but was pretty confident there was one. Indeed, there is a very nice article for Hammer. There are whole companies which sell Bucking Bars. I feel there should be a Bucking Bar article. Synesthetic (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... leaving aside the motivation here... there seems to be a lot to say about hammers, seeing as there are a gazillion types and they have been around since some Australopithecine got tired of bruising their knuckles. Is there much to say about bucking bars, beside the dicdef? "Piece of metal behind rivet" doesn't lend itself much to informative coverage in secondary sources... maybe etymology, but that's still within dicdef territory. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would move to draft pending potential expansion into something worth having in article space. With physical inventions, there is always something more than the etymology of the term. When was it first invented? Is there a specific person who came up with it, or did it merely come to be used in a certain time period without a specific inventor being identifiable? Has the invention been improved over time, and if so, in what ways? There's enough to say about it that this guy was able to make the video on this page. bd2412 T 17:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rivet#Installation as a ((R with possibilities)). There isn't enough for a stand-alone article currently, and with its additional context, the article rivet does a better job of describing what a bucking bar actually is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability of this subject is undetermined and from the above it seems as if all relevant information is already covered in other articles. EvilxFish (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rivet. We don't need an article on every component used in every process. There's more than enough information in rivet. When there gets too much there, we can bring the redirect out of retirement and give it a glorious page all of its own, fully described, referenced and duly polished. Until then... well. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rivet#Installation -- the number of possible different shapes may be vast, but they're all about putting an anvil in place to strike against. As the bar serves no other purpose than to be used in the installation of rivets, it is suitable to merge and redirect. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: LOL-- LOL-- LOL--, sorry! Strong keep as payback? That's a good one, and one of the better of rationale. I love Wikipedia. There is this little policy that apparently is not important, or over-looked (I hope the later), that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maybe significant coverage is not really required. We can "ignore the rules" because it will help Wikipedia somehow, or mothball the 29 words as a redirect until such time as we have enough for a full-blown article. The "I'm pissed at you so keep" expended more words in the first line and there are five more lines. On a more serious note Rivet gun would be the more suited place for coverage but with only 29 words and such passion I think we could just blank-and-redirect. Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay so there is an article for anvil already which a bucking bar appears to be a type of. I would still think bucking bar deserves a page. Think about all of the things in your life which are riveted. Bucking bars helped create them. Synesthetic (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind if there could be a stand-alone article having been an automotive technician and paint and body man for over 30 years. I have used a pneumatic rivet gun, that will not work without a bucking bar set, that actually is like a mobile anvil and similar to a dolly used in bodywork. Given some of the other options above I would prefer stand-alone considering there is Hammer (firearms), Trigger (firearms), and other like articles.

To some, the apparent "sourcing thing" might be deemed a thing of the past but at present, and no viable options offered, (there are no references), I have a hard time with other options. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JPL's BLP concerns appear to have been addressed. A Train^talk 12:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Keymer[edit]

Oskar Keymer (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)

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR and no reliable source coverage to support it. His roles so far appear to be minor ones, not "major" roles for the purposes of clearing NACTOR, because none of the ones that have Wikipedia articles list him in their cast lists at all, and several of them don't even appear in his IMDb credits either, and the article doesn't cite any references at all. As always, every actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he has an IMDb profile -- he needs to be the subject of media coverage for an article to become earned, but there's no evidence that Oskar Keymer has been. And his article on de: doesn't cite any references either, so we can't just salvage this by copying anything over from there. The only reason I'm not also listing the German article for deletion is that I don't speak or write German in order to navigate the process. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete Non notable child actor. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed after reading below sources L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly notable as lead actor in de:Hilfe, ich hab meine Lehrerin geschrumpft, with other leading roles in de:Conni & Co and its sequel. —Kusma (t·c) 11:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kusma, this is an unreferenced blp. Do you have multiple, independent sources to confirm notability? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware that this is currently a completely unreferenced BLP (so I'm not voting "keep"), but he does meet WP:NACTOR per his films (which unfortunately don't have articles in English). Possible sources: [22] (mentioning his date of birth), [23], [24]. (Just from a Google News search for his name). —Kusma (t·c) 21:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete the only source listed in the article is IMDb, and IMDB is not a reliable source. The article fully and clearly violates our guidelines on biographies of living people, which states that all such articles must have reliable sources baking up what is stated in the article. So if an article has no reliable sources in it, it must be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does anybody here ever follow WP:BEFORE? This AfD has been around for two weeks and yet only I can find sources off Google? These delete votes above are obviously un-researched. This is no longer unsourced. Trackinfo (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly meets WP:NACTOR, and the sources Trackinfo added to the article plus those I mention above should be enough to prove this. —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not meeting WP:NACTOR, not finding significant independence coverage to determined huge following. May be WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep !votes have failed to address the nominator's concern that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Buchanan[edit]

Tanner Buchanan (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)

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. His "most notable role" is as a recurring supporting character, not as a main one, and his other listed roles are all one-off television appearances or minor characters in films -- and the only source present here is a post to his sister's Instagram account. As always, an actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he's had roles -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in real (not social) media about him and his performances in those roles before an article becomes appropriate, but there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - He is a major cast member on a hit TV show on a major network. How much more does he need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.94.35 (talk • contribs)

  Some actual reliable source coverage about him in real media, for starters. Notability always depends on that — nobody, but nobody, is ever notable enough for a Wikipedia article without that. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've seen articles about cast members of say Survivor, do nothing after and keep an article, while Teck Holmes cannot have one, despite having an accomplished career in entertainment, because he "only did MTV" as a castmember of Real World. Notability shouldn't be so subjective. Just my 2c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.94.35 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He's done several other notable roles such as Fuller House and The Fosters. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nomination. ─ 1997kB 07:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 3 episodes in a series is not the stuff a significant role is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "3 episodes in a series" is disingenuous. 16 episodes of Designated Survivor, 6 of The Fosters, 5 of Game Shakers, a lead role in the upcoming Karate Kid series. Arguably, those are enough to cover WP:NACTOR. I've added some basic sources to the article but they may be short of meeting the GNG. All in all, undecided for now. Mortee (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vada O. Manager[edit]

Vada O. Manager (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)

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business executive. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by a banned sock Special:Contributions/Salmonthelovedog. Not notable for public career either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to indicate any real world notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BLP & WP:BIO etc. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing even approaching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Roost[edit]

Garry Roost (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. I found this and this, but it hardly supports notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete It is high time that every article sourced only to IMDb be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Poor sourcing in an article does not make a subject non-notable. His one-man stage shows have received quite a bit of coverage ([25], [26], [27], [28]) and his TV credits are easily verified. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. This is a BLP with zero references. Consensus has determined that IMDb is not a reliable source and "External links" are not references. As a reminder, this is a BLP and as such is held to a higher degree concerning references. Four links were provided above, #1, #2, #3 are about "Pope Head" and #4 about the "one-man play". Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability, so this is considered as being two references. The talk page shows the issues concerning a lack of were mentioned almost a year ago. and now there are two, and this is not enough to think about passing GNG. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability" - seriously? --Michig (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Jay[edit]

Lily Jay (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)

most of the claimed notability is not in my field, but I don';t see how any of it meets my standard. The Huffington Post does not have sufficient editorial control for a BLP, and the Inc item is a Inc Profile , which any privately owned business with an English language website can get for $30 a year.[29] . (I suspect we may have to check every article on a business using an Inc reference to remove the ones that are Inc Profiles.-- I did not realize how useless they wee until I read all the details on the linked page--by expanding the faqs at the bottom) DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of the subject. From a Factiva search, the only independent source mentioning her appears to be a Gold Coast Bulletin article (also published in Cairns Post) about a song written about her by a former X-Factor contestant. All other mentions on Google appear to be either trivial or non-reliable, or are self-published/republished press releases (see WP:BASIC). Only thing weighing in favour of keep is that she has a large fan base per WP:NMODEL but this is not a conclusive factor. Kb.au (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG . There is significant coverage of her modeling career, and her role in So You Think You Can Dance was documented in her IMBd page. Cannady212 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As John Pack Lambert pointed out, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDBREF), and a list of television appearances does not show notability regardless. Unsure what the significant coverage of her modelling career you're referring to is. Only independent source (that is, not self published or based on a press release) is an interview with her on blogging platform Medium. Kb.au (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The WP:GNG is met. Significant coverage does not imply a significant number of sources, but whether a topic is addressed directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this case, there is significant coverage of the model on several media outlets. Plus she has a large fanbase per WP:NMODEL.  ⚜ LithOldor ⚜  ^(T) 13:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the keep votes show a total lack of understanding what is and what is not a reliable source. IMDb is absolutely not at all a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I do agree that IMDb is not at all a reliable source, I don't understand why Gold Coast Bulletin and Inc Magazine are considered unreliable? Neither are self-published nor press releases.  ⚜ LithOldor ⚜  ^(T) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After ignoring social media, self publishing sites, promos, and primary, there is essentially nothing left of any significance that I can readily find. Fails WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(correction The Inc articles was not a link profile, as Litholdor pointed out to me on my talk p. I'd say it would be more accurately classed as a press release, or at best an advertorial. The give-away was the author, "By Wanda Thibodeaux, Copywriter, TakingDictation.com", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com." DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an advertorial on a nn individual, built on WP:SPIP sourcing. Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Weighing in with the re-listing. This subjects only claim to notability is a social media following, which doesn’t count. Also feeble is the recognition she may have received by an appearance on a tv show competition. Re: the keep votes, I wonder to what the degree the editors critically looked at the content of the sources/google hits? They all are derived from the subject's own press release/promo/advertorial origin. Yes, sources such as Inc. Magazine and The Gold Coast Bulletin can contain reliable coverage independent of the subject, but not every bit of content therein meets that criteria. Non-paid repurposing of promotional material can (and in this case is) passed off as "real" coverage merely to serve as content to fill out a publication/website. In this regard, the argument of meeting GNG by “…significant coverage…on several media outlets…” misses the mark. In fact, I can't find any significant coverage on this subject at all. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Social-media C-lister of insufficent additional notability. SunChaser (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herois e vampiros[edit]

Herois e vampiros (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)

Article seems to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D3 (expo)[edit]

D3 (expo) (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)

A one-time Expo in 2006. Coin945 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable event._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 13:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Selangor state election[edit]

Next Selangor state election (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 notability and references angys (Talk Talk) 10:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article will be dated once the next Selangor election has taken place, and thus will constantly need modification. In addition, it does not have any references. Vorbee (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep It's well established that articles on state elections in Malaysia are appropriate for Wikipedia (see contents of this template). Being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. Given the number of articles on state elections we have in the US or district elections in the UK, this nomination would appear to be a classic case of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. Number 57 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But why? The election aren't held at others time like Sarawak. It is not necessary to create an articleto describe it. If this keep, there will same article like Penang, Johor and other states. angys (Talk Talk) 11:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As Vorbee mentioned above, the scope of this article is inherently dynamic as it will change after every election. The next is scheduled to take place in August. I will nominate similarly titled articles for move, and maybe they’ll end up at AfD. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of election article titling. Future election of uncertain date are named "Next Fooian [type] election". See eg Next Spanish general election or Next United Kingdom general election. Once dates are set (or the electiom must occur in a certain year) the articles are moved to include the year in the title. Number 57 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Articles on upcoming (and imminent) state-wide elections are well within the scope of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would also strongly second Number 57's point on systematic bias - it would send a peculiar message if this article were to be deleted while a multitudinous number of equivalent articles for English-speaking and Western countries remain. Eloquai (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, as you said, the state election has notability. So that means we can create more meaningless article e.g. Next Penang state election, Next Perlis state election, Next Johor state election and more. One thing you must know is that election will be held with general election. (Only S'wak for special case) So Wikipedia really needs 12 new Malaysia state election article, absolute No. angys (Talk Talk) 12:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles on those subjects could be expanded with information on the parties and candidates standing, the leaders and their respective platforms, the main state-wide issues, opinion polling, endorsements, and the campaign itself. I fail to see how that would be a 'meaningless' endeavour and, as noted, this article and all those potential articles would fall within Wikipedia's notability policies, which is the key issue for us here at AfD. Eloquai (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Thunder Fox (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderFox[edit]

ThunderFox (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)

Pre-internet games are notoriously hard to source, but this one seems harder than most. Coin945 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - Arcade System games are always harder to find, but this one is mentioned on GameRankings, including two reviews. May have been harder to find, as the title is actually Thunder Fox. MobyGames also has reviews. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Lee Vilenski, do you have a target for a move in mind?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As below User:E.M.Gregory, Thunder Fox would be the correct place to move. I'm sure it's not that big a deal, but it should be moved. Meets WP:GNG in my eyes. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and move page to Thunder Fox as suggested by User:Lee Vilenski. the game has some notability, including popularity of the music as a chiptune and ongoing interest by aficionados of ancient games.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific Publishing[edit]

Prolific Publishing (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)

Three line stub. Does this really have enough notability for a whole article? Coin945 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no sources since creation. Does not notability guidelines for companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of arcade video games: Not released[edit]

List of arcade video games: Not released (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)

Completely unsourced, this article contains a list of games struggling for independent notability due to all being unreleased. It's essentially a list of redlinks. Coin945 (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]