The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just spam for a company with no verifiable evidence of notability either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music Registry[edit]

Music Registry (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)

Promotional. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy delete -- as A7 / G11; completely nn & promotional 'cruft. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mundo Arts[edit]

Mundo Arts (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 Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Cannot locate anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James O'Toole (tax lawyer)[edit]

James O'Toole (tax lawyer) (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 cropped up after a block for NLT by an account claiming to be O'Toole's lawyer. Having looked at it, he's not notable per BLP1E in my book. This is a lawyer whose name appeared in the Paradise Papers and therefore got some coverage in reliable sources. The Guardian article is about him (bear in mind the Guardian published a ton of articles about PP), the BBC one is about a selection of "dodgy" tax advisers. Not convinced. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete We'd usually delete 'tax avoidance' lawyers on site if they were American; same here. If not for the paper leak nobody would even be able to pick him out of a lineup. WP:N not met. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete nothing here is close to enough to establish notability. Even if some of his actions were found to be criminal, which they may or may not be, I have no clue, that would still not be enough for notability unless we got substantial and sustained coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, per nom - fails WP:BLP1E. fish&karate 09:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree with Guy re redirecting to Paradise papers once deleted. fish&karate 12:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, though a redirect to paradise papers might be appropriate since the name is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or redirect, this is one event, the individual's role in the event was minimal, there is not likely to be ongoing coverage mentioning him.Jacona (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I don't see the point of a redirect to paradise papers because 'James O'Toole (tax lawyer)' is a lot to type. Entering 'James O'Toole' brings the reader to a DAB page, and there it may be worth writing something like 'James O'Toole, who was named in the paradise papers affair.' Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet the notability guidelines. It's not sufficient to simply be named in the Paradise Papers scandal.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Peano curve. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murray polygon[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Google Scholar gives only 7 results for "murray polygon", 3 of which are by the original creator. I've been unable to find any mention of this in any pop. lit. as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to Peano curve (should yield a paragraph or so). The article even uses the illustration from Peano curve and boldy replaces "iteration of Peano curve construction" with "Murray polygon" - that nicely demonstrates the relationship, and the lack of a need for a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Both notable and significant. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...thank you for that immensely well-reasoned drive-by, I guess... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to Peano curve per the above. Scattered book and other scholarly references (e.g., [1][2][3]) are enough to support a description of the idea, but not really adequate for an article in its own right. And, often, setting a topic within the context of a more broad idea is pedagogically the better option anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: would be okay with the merge as suggested above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Peano curve per above.Not enough discussed to warrant standalone article.Winged Blades^Godric 12:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burning Spear. The nominator has indicated that they would be content with a redirect also. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burning Music[edit]

Burning Music (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 Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Burning Spear, where it is already covered. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Very happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect - Per Michig. Information already covered on that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alena (graphic novel)[edit]

I feel like it is WP:TOOSOON, seems somewhat notable to me. Has been a stub for over two months with little to no activity. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep has substantial coverage in reliable sources, won a major award, and was made into a notable movie. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep for winning an award. There's no WP:DEADLINE to expand it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I did not note the gravity of the award given to the publication, but the page could perhaps do with better sourcing in general. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman Vyahirev[edit]

Roman Vyahirev (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I can find no evidence he actually played in the KHL as the article claims. Joeykai (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Given Dolovis' long history of shenanigans, for which he was community banned from new article creation, and that I can't find any record of any such player at ANY level of European hockey, I'm comfortable with a G3 speedy as a hoax article. Ravenswing 22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Most likely what has happened is he used a different transliteration of the name. He has done that a few times and I have had to redirect articles because they got created twice. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually I see that 18abruce found him. Dolovis has done this a few times too. Call the MHL the KHL when it is in fact not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually at the time of article creation he likely had the name right, see here. Makes identifying the earlier Ukrainian players a real nuisance, while the russians have a few more clues. Does not change that this article should be deleted.18abruce (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Burn it right away. Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete; The player profile is here. Definitely a real player but he never made it out of Torpedo's development system.18abruce (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Does not seem to have played in KHL and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet GNG or NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robyn Maby[edit]

Robyn Maby (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY (did not see any women's teams listed there on a first glance. Hmmm.) Rogermx (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Indeed you don't; with the exception of the Olympics (covered under a different standard), women's hockey has never generated the press coverage necessary to grant presumptive notability to every player competing ... or indeed, more's the pity, much coverage at all. Ravenswing 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete –Article about completely non notable person. Fails specific SNG for lack of any verifiable achievement and fails GNG for lack of any sufficient coverage in reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Completely non-notable person? She represents her country at a sport! I'm not voting keep though, after looking at NHOCKEY I was surprised that I couldn't find any critiera she clearly met. I've added some information and sources, but it's not enough. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There's no provision for half-notable people in Wikipedia. If there's show it to me. It is binary: Either notable or not notable, period. What ever come in between is pedantic verbiage. And less I forget, this is not the comment that requires your split-second response, it is not even a question, nobody sought for response. It is the Unanswered questions that you decided to sweep under the carpet, that should have response. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete; To address NHOCKEY, she played 10 minutes in the third tier of the World Championships in 2011. Clearly not a pass, and the aticle attempts to mislead the reader into believing she played in other world tournaments when she did not in fact make the team for any other year. The sources listed do not pass GNG, and do not confirm the content of the article (plays for the national team, played in China).18abruce (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Unless additional references can be found to support WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY appears to be pretty irrelevant for top women's hockey players. Hmlarson (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and subsequently also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to International Space Station. No need for an AFD here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google International Space Station[edit]

Google International Space Station (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 have made headlines in July 2017, and otherwise does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE at all. Home Lander (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to appropriate target. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete It being mentioned in headlines is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. And in this case, anyway, there happens to be an already existing appropriate article (Google Street View), and it already has content about this. The article not expanding on it, it also probably falls under CSD criteria A10. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2022 one softly). T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2026 Asian Para Games[edit]

2026 Asian Para Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Mattg82 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:CRYSTAL:

2022 Asian Para Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete we can always undelete in 2026. I can see writing an article a year ahead of such a big event, but not this far ahead. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete 2026 is way too ahead, per nom, and per WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete both - too far ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Marvell Technology Group chipsets[edit]

List of Marvell Technology Group chipsets (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)

Overly specific listcruft, no sourcing found. important only to gearheads if at all Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The individual chipsets themselves are not notable so nothing more than directory of expertcruft. Mattg82 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comments @Mattg82: and @Ajf773:, how on earth can you call this Fancraft? That makes no sense what so ever! I can't see how you can even apply that rational to delete this article, Not a Catalogue I can understand, however I see 36 references to this list, I for one can't see many people needing this resource and can't see how it adds anything to wikipedia, if someone is looking for this information I am sure they will seek a primary source and this wikipedia page isn't that. But you two really need to work on your arguments for deleting a page. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I called it expertcruft, I only pointed to fancruft for something related to link to. My idea of what cruft is, is probably different to yours. But however you want to define the contents of this page, there is a lot of excessive detail here, including a lot of WP:HOWTO make it work on Linux, making it hard to read. Mattg82 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: excessive listcruft & WP:NOTMANUAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bond Gideon[edit]

Bond Gideon (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Her roles do not rise to the level of significance. For example, in the article on the film Operation Petticoat, we have a listing of 22 cast members. I am less than convinced that all 22 listed had significant roles. However Gideon does not even merit inclusion in that list of 22.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Insufficiently notable actress. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Detrended correspondence analysis[edit]

Detrended correspondence analysis (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)

Incoherent mess of buzzwords, no sourcing found. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Could the nom please clarify what is meant by "no sourcing found"? There are several items in the References section. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• keep GScholar's very first hits on the phrase are a series of paper discussing the merits of the technique. I must confess I find the explanation opaque, however. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The paper that introduced the technique has over 4,000 GS citations. That's a clear sign of notability for any academic contribution. And GS finds over a thousand publications containing the exact phrase "detrended correspondence analysis" just since the beginning of 2017 [4]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The term has been in use, and appearing in the relevant literature, for forty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sourcing, clearly important. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Keep. It's patently obvious that this is a notable subject in ecology. It's hard to write articles about statistical techniques that are totally accessible to a lay audience, but the fact that you don't understand an article isn't a good reason to delete it. – Joe (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Snow keep. Easily notable. A quick WP:BEFORE would have prevented this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The heck. When did "I don't understand this topic" become a reason to nominate for deletion? Widely used method, good if not great sourcing (in direct contrast to the OP's statement). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejecta Mathematica[edit]

Rejecta Mathematica (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 "journal" which (according to our article) only ever published two issues, and no longer exists. My initial feeling was, This looks interesting, followed by, Hmmm, The Economist and Ars Technica as sources; looks pretty solid.

But, looking at the cited articles closer, they were published on Jul 20th and 29th, 2009, which coincides with the first issue. My own searching found an item in MAA, also dated Jul 29th, 2009. I can't find any other WP:RS, and even the blog posts and such I've found, are mostly clustered around that date. I assume, then, that they're all in response to some press release, and thus not really independent coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the better sources people have found, I withdraw my nomination. Who am I to argue with Science and Nature? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak delete - This reminds me a little of Null result#Scientific journals for null results. I agree that the article is currently a bit promotional (failing NPOV). If there were more coverage of the article, this could be dealt with. But with such limited coverage, it is difficult to write a NPOV article sourced by RS. Also, while I don't think there is a SNG for journals, I don't think that this passes Wikipedia:TEXTBOOKS, or any similar SNGs and the GNG case is fairly weak as RoySmith points out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've struck my vote as the nom wishes to withdraw and I have no objection.Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep It's a fine joke that there should be an attempt to reject this article. But it is not well founded as it is easy to find further coverage in works such as Ethics and Science; Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society; Readersourcing—a manifesto; Micro‐credits in scientific publishing; &c. Naturally, as the project didn't last long, the coverage is limited but notability does not expire and so we're good. See also Deletionpedia. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Most mentions I can find are just that, brief mentions (e.g., [5], [6] [7] [8] [9]). The summer 2009 coverage was likely prompted by a press release, but not all of it was based on one, judging by the Ars Technica piece [10], which has extra commentary, and to a lesser degree the Economist one [11]. Nature took the trouble of interviewing them, which at least indicates that Nature thought they were worth the trouble [12]. Science also took the time to ask them a few questions, it appears [13]. For me, all this adds up to a "merits a mention"; if someone can think of a good target for a merge and redirect, I'd be amenable to that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I cut some language that sounded rather promotional to me and added a couple references. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. There's also book coverage from 2012 and 2016, demonstrating ongoing interest in this topic [14] [15], although both of these are not very in-depth. I can see how one might think that this is a flash-in-the-pan joke not worthy of coverage, but our opinions on whether something should be notable are not very relevant to whether it actually is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sam Ancliff[edit]

Sam Ancliff (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)

Nominated for deletion due to blatant self-promotion and would-be political posturing.

Article was created by the subject, Sam Ancliff, as who is non-notable (see WP:COI, WP:SOAP), initially posting as ActivateUK, then as Sam Ancliff (politician) and now Im Cheating.

Fails WP:AUTO, WP:GNG as the (poor) references cited are little more than passing mentions (one being semi-crowd-sourced by university media students), others relating to an organisation Sam Ancliff is involved in Activate (organisation), (see WP:MASK). Sam Ancliff is advertising at LinkedIn for paid media consultancy work at £25,000 p.a. requirement.

The prod was challenged by a suspicious new username/SPA established within the hour of template removal. Likely CU needed (now? or in future, this is for posterity), together with the following IP.
*Im Cheating worklist SPA indicated
*82.24.215.175 worklist SPA indicated
*UKPoliticalEdits worklist SPA indicated.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The subject is an unremarkable politician and campaign director. Two of the references used are YouTube videos. Per nom, it appears to be self-promotion. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not satisfy WP:Politics. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete with WP:SALT. Being campaigns director for an advocacy organization is not a notability pass on Wikipedia, and neither is being an unsuccessful candidate for county council — but the sources here are simply not cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG. YouTube videos don't assist notability, WP:ROUTINE coverage of all the candidates in a county council election doesn't assist their notability, directories of his own writing on the websites of publications he's written for don't assist his notability — and after we discount all of those, the only two sources left are ones that aren't about Ancliff, but merely include him giving quote in an article about some other subject. That is not how you demonstrate a person as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I should have additionally shown this permalink with initial CoI declaration mentioning Sam Ancliff (Politician) that was quickly blanked, and the upload details for the portrait File:SamAncliffActivate.jpg would suggest that Sam Ancliff IRL is User:Im Cheating.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Activate UK. WP:PRESERVE FloridaArmy (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete No notable references. Clear self promotion, little discussion needed imo. -Octopithia (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (GMT)
• I will pass no comment other than stating I have no direct affiliation to Sam Ancliff, Activate or any association of either. I have an interest in politics in my local community as both the individual and the group was born from my home town. - Im Cheating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im Cheating (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- "Campaign director" is not a level of advancement to presume notability, and there's nothing better. Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG. Merging BLP content to the org would be undue, so delete is the best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to ZeniMax Media. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mud Duck Productions[edit]

Mud Duck Productions (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 for over 2 years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete These are all reliable sources I could quickly find that mention the topic in-text: [16][17][18][19]. While the first offers minimal information directly about the company/label, the article overall easily fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi (✉) 18:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete and redirect to ZeniMax Media as a bargain-bin seller of low-notice games. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and redirect – I actually first created this page as a redirect to ZeniMax, it's not really notable on its own. Ausir (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will note that while this page has been speedy deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, the overwhelming majority of the discussion is in support of deletion, so regardless of who creates the article in the future, it will still be eligibly for G4 deletion (if the issues here have not been addressed). Primefac (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stewart Levenson[edit]

Stewart Levenson (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)

Candidate only - no evidence of notability. PamD 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete A borderline speedy though the text is clearly different from the previous round, but it still comes off as an attempt to keep the candidate to the fore. The only possible sign of real notability is the whistleblower thing, which smells of WP:BLP1E except that we don't appear to have an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I'll grant that this doesn't qualify for speedy, as the notability claim here is completely different than it was the first time, but it's still not one that makes the article keepable. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just have his name on the ballot, to pass WP:NPOL. But this doesn't make any claim of preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for any other reason either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for campaign websites. Pburka (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguments with a banned-paid-sock.Winged BladesGodric 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought everything on Wikipedia was free... IvoryDinn (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Haven't you noticed the annual ads featuring Jimbo's mug, asking for cash? The servers are not free; see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] No, no, I didn't mean "without cost to someone somewhere", I meant "without charge to the general public to access and create and add to", as in "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"... but I think we are talking past each other. IvoryDinn (talk) We still have inclusion and notability and sourcing standards to determine what contributions are or aren't appropriate. So it's not "free" in the sense of "any possible topic at all is always fair game", which is what Pburka was talking about. We're "free" in the sense of not charging a fee to read or contribute, yes, but we're not "free" in the sense of "there are no rules about what people can or cannot do on here". Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] That wasn't what I was saying either— I like rules. I wish they applied more often. IvoryDinn (talk) Keep I realize that most of the requirements at wp:NPOL say that in the case of a political candidate,the subject has to actually win or hold office, or be his or her party's nomination, to qualify as wiki-notable as a politician, but paragraph 3 there says that a political person can also qualify as notable under other criteria such as being the subject of discussion in reliable independent secondary sources— like, for example, the Boston Globe and National Public Radio. How many people are interviewed by the Globe and NPR but still don't qualify as wiki-notable?? I am not arguing that he meets wp:NPOL and never did; I am arguing that he meets the general notability guidelines, and shouldn't that be enough? Isn't that enough for virtually any other Wikipedia article? He has multiple news services reporting his movements and he is showing up in the media almost daily now. That makes him seem pretty darned notable to me! How can it not to others, unless you decide to apply a set of criteria that will de facto exclude him as a politician? And if a person meets the GNG but fails the subject specific requirements, doesn't that mean they usually get kept for meeting the HIGHER inclusion standard? I am finding it confusing as a new editor to see my work getting lined up for deletion only because on one wants to admit that the reasons are the wrong reasons! Am getting the sense that I may not choose to stay around here very long. Levenson's wife died of ovarian cancer; so did mine. That was why I wanted to write about him. And my God, he certainly looks plenty notable AS A PERSON to me! IvoryDinn (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Strike sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Candidates for election generally do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL just for being a candidate. Our precedents (which can change [and are expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES ]) state that the campaign is notable per WP:BLP1E, but that the candidates are not notable by virtue of their campaign. There already exists United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018, where some of the information about the subject could be added. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguments with a banned-paid-sock.Winged BladesGodric 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not arguing his inherent notability. Not at all. Paragraph 3 of NPOL states: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The subject here, a candidate for political office, has just that kind of coverage: significant, reliable, and independent. His being a candidate for political office should not be used to DIS-qualify him, which looks to be how this is being done here. The subject-specific criteria are useful for including articles which would otherwise fail to meet the primary notability criteria, but not to exclude those which already do, no? (In other words, if a person who clearly qualified as a university professor decided one day to run for office, would we then delete his/ her article for not having met the notability criteria for politicians??)IvoryDinn (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] You're right that WP:NPOL doesn't exclude subjects who pass WP:GNG. However, I believe it's generally agreed that political campaigns are news, rather than encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Specifically, campaigns usually have little enduring notability. Pburka (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] *I get the sense that you are looking for reasons to exclude this article. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is not the same as "Wikipedia articles cannot be based on newspapers." There is not, so far as I know, any policy saying that newspapers cannot be the sole basis for an article (is there?). Plane crashes are news. Hurricanes are news. This news story is not a routine announcement like an obituary or a celebrity spotting, and there are tons of articles that began with only newspapers for references. So far this one has been in the papers, on tv, and on the radio for over six months, and is ongoing (meaning that it is not "breaking news", which is what the "Wikipedia is not news" thing is meant to address). At what point do we call that "enduring"? Are the sources reliable? Are they independent? Are they verifiable? Do they talk about the subject in depth? WP:NPOL says nothing about the likelihood of a campaign being notable or enduring. Where is the policy page that outlines durability so that I can review it? ("...generally agreed..." makes me a little uneasy). IvoryDinn (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Plane crashes are a good example. Wikipedia doesn't include articles for most plane crashes because they're newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. They are included if they had an enduring impact, e.g. the crash investigation led to a change in regulation or design. (I said "generally agreed" because very few, if any, things on Wikipedia have universal agreement.) Pburka (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] We just had an AfD about a plane crash, the standard is much lower than you suggest, for example if there is serious damage to the aircraft or airport, or if there are fatalities, it is considered encyclopedic. Jacona (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] When you say, "generally agreed", you make it sound as though you are speaking on behalf of others who may or may not exist. This is why I asked for a policy page, which so far no one has shown me. It is very confusing to show readers a set of policy guidelines and then contradict them in practice because it is "generally agreed" that those policies don't actually apply to the thing at hand. I also recently created an article on another politician from NH, Mark MacKenzie, a man with far less news coverage, which was approved without question. The double standard there is remarkable. Maybe this campaign will result in an election, maybe not, but that isn't the point. The point is that the notability criteria appear to have been met, but that it is "generally agreed" (despite the absence of any supporting policy) that this doesn't really matter. Please justify that for me, because I still don't get it. IvoryDinn (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] I did link to the policy: WP:NOT Pburka (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] WP:OtherStuffExists. Mark MacKenzie is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a position which meets WP:NPOL. Perhaps a better policy to point you towards is WP:BLP1E, which is how we frequently judge candidates for elective office, that being, the election itself is notable (and information about each candidate can be placed there), but the candidates themselves may not necessarily be notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Once wp:GNG has been met, WP:NPOL becomes irrelevant. Subject has been interviewed on national radio. Also, from WP:OUTCOMES:"When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." So far, no one has suggested that any of that isn't true here. Gruenback (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC) This user has nearly no other edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Strike sock TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. This is a political advertisement. NOTADVOCACY supersedes all considerations of notability . I probably would support a NPOV article article if he won the primary, but he hasn't even done that, so there is no point in rewriting. (I do think that major party candidates for a national-level office in a 2 party system are generally notable enough for articles.) DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Appears to be spam from an undisclosed paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Please salt this TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Given the background, I think this could have been speedied. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. They'll get their wish if they win. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete & Salt. Do we have to clean up this guy's blp1e/advocacy/spam every campaign season? Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable political candidate who fails to meet notability guidelines for politicians, biographies, or in general, really. Given the unwelcome and recurrent nature of this article, I'd advocate for a hefty dose of salt on the side. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. All of the sources are linked to his candidacy and talk about him being a major whistleblower which gives the impression that he may be notable over and beyond his candidacy. But not a single source is from before he announced his candidacy. This suggests that his PR team is pushing his whistleblowing to help his chances. GNG most certainly hasn't been met. Domdeparis (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete & Salt. This has been one of the most tenacious attempts in recent times to get a non notable vanity page (political election campaign) into mainspace. The original paid author KDS444 has been heavily sanctioned. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Stewart Levenson (only admins can see it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete As per WP:TOOSOON, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADVOCACY, plus worries over WP:COI. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 08:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The sources provided really don't indicate either NPOL or GNG. This may change, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be salted in the meantime, especially given the COI and PAID concerns. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete & Salt Too much volunteer time has been wasted on this candidate. Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Upon the basis that this is undisclosed paid editing. !dave 10:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gigacity[edit]

Gigacity (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)

Procedural nom: PROD contested without improvement. Most of the ghits seem to discuss cities with bandwidth ≥1 GBps or a fictional city in Mega Man X, not the term discussed in the article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This article is suitable for a dictionary entry, which it already has one. Perhaps in the future things will change, not it is not notable today. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete I find one reasonable hit back in 2001, but it's clearly a notion which didn't catch on. The vast majority of book/scholar hits are from scanning errors. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candy Maaka[edit]

Candy Maaka (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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Only coverage I could find was a 2012 article on the QANTAS award and a 2014 article on her Kickstarter campaign for a vegan-fashion line, both from local newspaper Manly Daily. Much of the article also fails WP:V. Kb.au (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. As per nom, fails SIGCOV. If not self-promotional then clearly a COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. And as DerbyCounty says either self promotion or COi in the writing of it. NZFC^(talk) 18:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete there seems to be no news coverage, and search hits are almost all social media. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep there is news coverage, a lot of it in print media. Also note the name change. Will add to references. ^[1]JF1982 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— JF1982 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— I'm a brand new user who has only written, well attempted to write, one article. Of course there are few or no other edits outside of this topic. But for your information, I have also signed up to help tackle the backlog of orphaned articles (now that I know what they are). We have to start somewhere, right? Doesn't mean we're a single-purpose account. JF1982 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Adding to the above, sources are local and mostly web and article is an ORPHAN. Judging from the edit record, this is likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Keep In response to the local press comments, the subject lives in Australia and press articles are from Australia, New Zealand, America, Europe and UK. Mostly print. JF1982 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Keep Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I wrote this article and I am not the subject. I have 3 others to write, and I am still trying to find my way through this. This is the first time that I have heard of the term 'orphan article,' so I will try and figure out how to fix that. If anyone is willing to point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it a lot. I did read Wikis regulations and purposely didn't add business names/fashion label names and the subjects current book title to article, because I didn't want my first article to seem 'promotional.' But it appears to have come across as promotional, COI and now vanity. Please understand how frustrating it is to have everyone point out the errors in your article without offering how to better it. I genuinely welcome any tips. Thanks.JF1982 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Please stop !voting more than once. Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. As you can see Agricola44, I am new here. I have been 'copy and pasting' how to reply here, and trial and error. I am only now aware of the 'comment' heading, and now understand that I can use 'comment' if I would like to say something (other than vote). I thought I had to keep saying 'keep' because that is my vote, and no, I didn't use 'keep' to try and tally more votes - hence I signed every post. It wasn't deliberate. I also thought that this wasn't a vote, but a discussion? So number of votes shouldn't count anyway. Please be patient with newbies here. This stuff is tricky! Everyone automatically assumes the worst. JF1982 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Correct, it's not a vote. It's a !VOTE. Kb.au (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Userfy for user to continue working on it. While this may not be clear cut notable, there are several claims that can show notability. And based on exchange here, I wish everyone should AGF and let this to be sent to user space instead of deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not opposed to moving it to draft or userspace if others think the notability is borderline. Kb.au (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm afraid notability is not borderline. If one looks carefully at the sources, they're almost all webpages. The Qantas airlines award is not notable. Moreover, the source for that doesn't even list Maaka, but is rather about the award itself. Most of the article is OR (is currently earning her diploma in Master Herbalism, etc). I think we must bear in mind that this is a BLP and that means sourcing is relatively stringent. Broad searching doesn't turn up anything that is even close to demonstrating notability. WorldCat shows that her book Lightwarrior is held by 0 institutions, Google searching just turns up GoFundMe/blogs/Twitter/FaceBook cruft, GNews nothing, no citations in books, and nothing in GS or HighBeam. It seems the only real RS are a few local news pieces, as the nom stated originally. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• There's borderline notability of course that's why WP:GNG is guideline not hard-coded policy. What you think is not notable someone may think otherwise and your view cannot summarily trumps theirs. Your search is limited by several factors both technically and physically. I am not saying it is outright notable but I can't say it's not either. There is a reason CSD A7 was designed very strict. On use of local sources, that's your opinion; there's no policy or guideline that prohibited them. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I hear that you are asserting this is a borderline case, but you don't seem to make a case beyond EXISTENCE of a few local sources. We generally don't accept notability at this level, otherwise a large fraction of humanity would be notable for WP purposes. It is true that my search is limited "both technically and physically", but no more than those done for numerous other AfDs here every single day. I don't think your strawman of the subjectivity of notability is helpful here. The fact of the matter is that most of the article is OR, most of the "sources" are unacceptable for a BLP, and there's very little else convincing that turns up in a broad search of the standard, conventional information databases that we use here at WP every day for this purpose (GS, WorldCat, etc. etc.). So, if you feel that this level of "evidence" is enough to say that notability is borderline, then I think you and I just have to disagree. Agricola44 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What does "most of the article is OR" mean? I have mentioned that I am doing this through trial and error. I have looked at other pages and used that as a guideline for what info to add. I added what the subject has studied and is studying, because I also added that she is a conservationist and humanitarian - it backs up those claims. I could add the subject's sustainable fashion/social enterprise as a page, but then I'd get blasted for promotional use. It seems that you want more info, but then I'm doomed because I'm not allowed to add it. Or is there a way to add that page, without being promotional? Also note that I did not add the subject's book to the article (again with the promotional stuff), Lightwarrior, even though it was sold by several of the largest bookstores in the world (I was able to see which stores sold the book through a google search). Regarding 'google searching and only finding GoFundMe/blogs/Twitter/FaceBook cruft' - note that the GoFundMe fundraiser was a recent event (Dec 2017), and social media is also recent/current; of course they're going to show on google regardless. But, the subject won the Qantas Award in 2012, and websites/media sites don't always hold articles for that long - it is 2018 after all (hence why print media is important and the clippings are available online). I have shared a print press clipping regarding the Qantas award win; it is notable. "It seems the only real RS are a few local news pieces" - The Dominion Post is NZ's largest newspaper, how is that local news when subject lives in Australia? Again, I have shared the clipping. The press articles are mostly print (local and international) and I have shown you where to view some of the clippings. But you keep saying the sources are only local. You will not find these clippings/print press articles in a google search or on worldcat - perhaps deeper research is needed because worldcat etc obviously can't pick up everything. "If one looks carefully at the sources, they're almost all webpages" - that happens when press is mostly print; how else am I supposed to cite relevant media articles, if not from the web? I add webpages and it's not good enough; yet in your opinion, the subject's notability is based on a web search. You can't have it both ways. JF1982 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• IMO, the most notable thing that the subject has done (asides from winning the Qantas award) was rebrand the successful fashion label that she won the award for in the first place. Subject rebranded to sustainable fashion and became a social enterprise instead. If you researched it, you would find that info easily. Although 'notable' to me and not 'notable' to you - I at least agree with 'borderline notability,' and that's why I wanted to write this article in the first place. JF1982 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FGS. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Girther movement[edit]

Girther movement (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:NOTNEWS. The daily Trump flash in the pan event doesn't need an article in an encyclopedia. Recreate if and when it has shown to have enduring impact and notability in a few months time. Fram (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - This is a story that goes to the heart of the issue of the honesty or otherwise of the most powerful man on the planet. How can it not be news? It has also gone international, achieving coverage in multiple reputable media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.97.50 (talk)
• Delete I agree wholeheartedly with Fram. There are hundreds of articles about President of Americas Donald Trump already, the matter of whether he is 6’2’’or 6’3’’ is almost not relevant, I believe he was measured and found to be 6’3’’ so the matter is resolved and I do not think this tiny detail needs to be documented in an entire article just for it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Per nom + Just some random speculation that seems to have some flimsy logic + a one inch change in height is not exactly huge and could be from better measurement/time of day. Wapo dismisses it out-of-hand pretty much Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete – This is just ridiculous. And obviously non-notable recentism. Let's go back to writing an encyclopedia. (Must admit this source was hilarious, though.) — JFG ^talk 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - As ludicrous as it sounds, this article is backed up by a number of reliable sources and easily passes the General Notability Guidelines. I think it is a stupid article about a stupid thing, and it makes me want to bash my head on the desk, but it satisfies notability criteria and this is the world we now live in. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scjessey, my friend, if you seriously think this is notable, please allow yourself to WP:IAR sometimes. — JFG ^talk 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are simply too many reliable sources and too much widespread coverage for this to be an IAR situation, as much as it pains me to admit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This indeed has received a lot more coverage than I realized - I sympathize with your !vote - quite a lot of it seems like 109 newspapers reporting though, mostly on the same twitter posts.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of coverage, yes - but literally all of it is from within the past 24 hours. There's nothing to suggest this will become a subject of enduring value or notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I commented already but after reading the last comment I will add that I think the deletion reason is good but it could be expanded to point out that the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DICT policies say that there should not be articles about every tiny detail and definition which I say is relevant to this article. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That WP:NOT#DICT defense doesn't make a lot of sense. The article is not about the word "girther", but rather it is about a growing movement of people who dispute the report given by the White House physician. Moreover, the fact that it easily passes WP:GNG means WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't really apply. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• At Talk:Donald Trump#Girther movement, I proposed a broader health of Trump page which could somehow incorporate this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, seriously? This is mostly based on two tweets from today. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS certainly apply here. While I would support including content regarding Trump's health and speculations on it in his article (or the Presidency subarticle), the "Girther" movement does not warrant its own article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete God, no. Somebody invents a cute pun about a claimed discrepancy in one of his physical measurements, and we immediately create an article about it? At most - at MOST, and I don't think it is there yet - it could be mentioned in another article. No way it qualifies for a standalone article and I very much doubt it ever will. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Sorry, but we have to be fair when deciding what is and isn't a notable neologism. This is a word said by one journalist, it's not "a thing" at this time. If a genuine article can be made regarding Trump and the bogus "100% fit" stuff emanating from the White House regarding his health, then that's fine. But this isn't that. TheValeyard (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If such an article were someday to be created, it would be called "Health of Donald Trump" and would include the entire picture. And that will only happen only if his health becomes an ongoing story of importance to his biography and his presidency. It will not be about a silly 1 inch discrepancy in his reported height. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• oh for heaven's sake DELETE Every controversy over every stupid thing that comes out of the Trump White House doesn't need an article one day after the matter is reported, if for no other reason that he says something almost every day to set someone off. Realistically something else is going to come along in another day or even before the sun sets in DC to push this off the queue of outrages. Write an article about it if there's still substantial furor in the MSM in a couple of months. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - It is a lame topic but relevant to American pop culture, this article has reliable sources and needs more time to evolve or redirected as previously stated. -- Susangrigg1 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did someone suggest a redirect? To what topic? (Btw I note that you are the author of this article. No offense to you is intended if it gets deleted.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Melanie, none would be taken. (Emir talk) had mentioned a broader article be created on Trump's health. It may also pertain to an article on Anti-fat bias as a public figure and how he both gives and receives this bias of weight.Susangrigg1 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and common sense. Chris Hayes coined a term on his show and we make a page about it? Really? Do the people saying "keep" not see how inappropriate this is? Even if there are enough sources to make a GNG argument, which I don't think there are, WP:IAR and keep this trash to the left wing blogs. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - has failed to achieve significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Obscure neologism. --Tataral (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS; not everything with a hashtag needs an article here. We've got near-below zero temps in New Orleans and Houston, surely that's more important to write an article about than this. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This is the extreme example I have seen of not news. Let's not even get into how ludicrous the whole things is. People quibbling about 1 inch is just ludicrous. I don't even want to try to count how many times a nurse has asked me my height and just written it down without checking it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per all the valid reasons above. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete silly news story.LM2000 (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, i believe this is a developing story to which more sources are starting to appear. For example its now been covered several times in UK newspapers. Whilst i agree its a stupid conspiracy, so was the "Birther movement" and thats now a fully fledged page in its own right with some in depth analysis. Personally if this page is deleted, i believe that page should be deleted for the same reasons - seeing the Birther movement page is unlikely to be deleted, that thus means this page should stay Garfie489 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "birther" nonsense would have had an immediate impact on the legitimacy of Obama's presidency if it had been in any way true. Whether Trump is 6'3" or 6'1" or whatever has no legal, political, ... impact, it just makes for another "funny" story. Fram (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree with Garfie489 about its similarities to the Birther movement. I also think this dialog has stirred a lot of emotion which may speak for its importance as an article. Again I think time will tell how far it goes, likely into the upcoming womens march.Susangrigg1 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This might be the epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Will this trend of making every single new phrase, tweet, article, parody, or word remotely related to Trump never end? This kind of thing is exactly what NOTNEWS is supposed to prevent. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete for goodness sake. This could easily be merged into the main Donald Trump article with two sentences after the doctor's conclusion. This does not need its own article. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into an article on Donald Trump mental and physical health theories, or the like. This is only the latest in a string of public contemplations on Trump's mental and physical health dating back at least to his involvement in the 2012 presidential campaign. bd2412 T 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Trump chessmaster meme[edit]

Donald Trump chessmaster meme (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)

Despite a bunch of good citations, this concept does not seem to have significant notability as a meme. Barring outright deletion, I would suggest moving the text to a section of Donald Trump on social media. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge - I agree that it should be merged with Donald Trump on social media. Supervegan (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or merge This is ephemeral pop culture detritus which obviously should not exist. But I think it's still probably WP:UNDUE anywhere else except maybe as a long collection of sources at the end of the one quotation. — Smuckola(talk) 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Thanks for the kudos on the citations anyway, LOL. I'm not going to vote on this. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - This is the perfect example of what AfD is for. This has no coverage, it's just a one-off, one of thousands that are not individually notable.Jacona (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Not a notable enough topic in my view to warrant a stand-alone article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete no enduring notability.LM2000 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urban zone (disambiguation)[edit]

Urban zone (disambiguation) (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)

Dab failing WP:TWODABS: a primary topic with 1 valid entry no 2. Urban Zone is to be deleted (NN + promo), 3. Urban zones of New Zealand is a WP:PTM covered by the primary topic. So, even if either 2. or 3. are retained, then it still fails TWODABS, so may as well SNOW delete now Widefox; talk 14:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, leaving Urban zone as a redirect to Urban area, with a redirect hatnote to Urban Zone if it survives AfD, instead of to the dab page. I can see no evidence that the term is used in New Zealand in an official way, so no need to link to that article. PamD 10:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per analysis of PamD, which I completely agree with. bd2412 T 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: The Philippine television series show is likely to be deleted due to WP:GNG and WP:COIN issues, so there is no good reason for leaving the disambiguate redirection. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G12 - copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Department of European-Central Asian Affairs (People's Republic of China)[edit]

The Department of European-Central Asian Affairs (People's Republic of China) (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)

unencyclopedical article that lacks the basics for an article on an official departement, it does not even state which ministry it belongs to is, where it is based is totally unsourced. IMHO a clear candidate for PROD but as it was Unprodded without being improved it must go through AFD. Tagged since june 2017 without improvement. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Speedy delete as a clear copyright violation. I've tagged the article appropriately. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G12 - copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Department of West Asian and North African Affairs (People's Republic of China)[edit]

The Department of West Asian and North African Affairs (People's Republic of China) (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)

unencyclopedical article that lacks the basics for an article on an official departement, it does not even state which ministry it belongs to is, where it is based is totally unsourced. IMHO a clear candidate for PROD but as it was Unprodded without being improved it must go through AFD. Tagged since june 2017 without improvement. Domdeparis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Seems real to me. WP:BEFORE would have been useful here.--TM 14:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• note. I did a find sources for it; the first thing I found was the official site, and it is a word for word copy of that site’s introductory paragraph, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright vio. I am not sure if the AfD trumps that, in which case it might be better blanked.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, AfD does not trump speedy deletion for copyright violation. Well spotted! 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aehsaas[edit]

Aehsaas (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:NFILM. No independent notability given, and the award appears to be one for participation. A Quick google reveals no third party sources discussing this. Killer Moff (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Could be redirected to director's article but almost everything would have to be cut out. Seems reasonable to maintain coverage of a notable directors early works and who took part. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete non notable as per WP:NFILM Hagennos (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable short film which does not meet WP:NFILM. Did not receive a theatrical release; no reviews. Insufficiently notable for a redirect, so delete is the best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Versatile (music)[edit]

Versatile (music) (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 seems rather pointless - like a dictionary definition inflated with some commonplaces. References are all illustrative rather than descriptive. I suggest this can be deleted w/o a redirect. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability, unencyclopedic, essay, etc. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete It is an essay about a word, and not an encyclopaedia worthy subject. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This looks like WP:OR, an attempt to create a subject rather than record information about a notable subject. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, agree this is WP:OR. Tacyarg (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harkamaya College of Education[edit]

Harkamaya College of Education (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 on a for-profit college, sourced entirely to the company's self-published report. I could find no significant, independent coverage and certainly nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Deprodded because "deletion of articles on accredited degree-level colleges is far from uncontroversial", but accreditation does not equal notability. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Maybe I have missed something, but I can find no evidence that this is a "for-profit" college. And, as far as I am aware, no officially accredited degree-awarding college has ever been deleted at AfD. Is there something about this one that means that it should be the first? Or should we apply the same standards to colleges in India that we do to colleges in the anglophone West? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The standard is the same whatever the organisation and wherever it's located: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I have made a good faith attempt to find it for this college, and found none. This isn't a major centre of higher education, it's a small, privately-owned teacher training college. I don't know about you but I have absolutely no idea what it takes to get a "B grade NAAC accreditation" so I don't think it's a good idea to presume that it's an indicator of notability. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep "In 2006, the college became the first institution in the state of Sikkim to offer the Master of Education degree". At worst it would be merged to the parent university. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought about that, but it only says it's "affiliated to", not part, of Sikkim University (which itself is a very minor regional university). The Sikkim website only gives it the barest mention, as one of fourteen (!) affiliated colleges [20]. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep It is a officially accredited degree-awarding college affiliated to the Sikkim University which is a Central University and the degree is recognised by the University Grants Commission (India) .I have added some references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: You added a primary government document that just includes Harkamaya in a table; a book that mentions it once in a directory of colleges (and doesn't verify the statement it is attached to); and, most bafflingly, to support the statement "the college was founded in 2003, and was initially affiliated to North Bengal University in West Bengal," you added a reference that mentions neither Harkamaya nor North Bengal University, and was published ten years before the college even opened! What on earth were you trying to achieve with that? – Joe (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Çomment :It was founded in 2003 and it was originally affiliated to the North Bengal University in West Bengal after the Sikkim University was founded in 2006 it got affiliated to the Sikkim University .Sorry I wrongly added a wrong link which I wished to add to another page thanks for pointing it out.It is recognised degree issuing college as per Sikkim Government site mentions it and this book states It was founded in 2003 and is affiliated to Sikkim University and the NAAC as per this gives it a rating of B+ it is not a run a mill private college. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think any of those facts are disputed. But being affiliated to a notable university or accredited by a notable body does not make this college notable. Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? – Joe (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete -- as a for-profit institution it needs to meet WP:NCORP. No sources have been presented to this effect by the Keep voters, and my searches do not bring up anything suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As I said above, I see no reason to suppose that this is a for-profit institution. A large percentage of the world's universities and colleges teaching to degree level are private but not for-profit, for example all of the Ivy League universities, and I see no evidence that this is any different. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly and completely irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Without reputable third-party material sources other than the institutions' own marketing materials, and without some self-inherent claim to notability, simply existing and being a college does not meet notability requirements, which a lot of people seem to utterly fail to understand here. Or do I seriously need to quote WP:ORGIN, WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG, all of which are pretty clear cut? Simply existing does not confer notability. besieged^talk 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The National Assessment and Accreditation Council is reputable and is not part of this institution's marketing department. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• We have long considered that all accredited degree-awarding institutions are notable. That is a longstanding consensus. Clearly that's what you utterly fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with Sikkim University, this article is about a college or appendage that is a part of a notable university. Since the Harkamaya College of Education does not have multiple, reliable sources a stand alone article does not meet WP:N and may be included as a short summary under the notable institution. This institution does appear to exist but it looks like a distance learning facility according to: (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Harkamaya+College,+6th+mile,,+Tadong,+Gangtok,+Sikkim+737102,+India/@27.3105755,88.5975893,3a,66.8y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCAoSLEFGMVFpcE5wZmV3NWVKUzN3RXpsaTdTMkpRWDJuTUlMYVJDNjlLUWZQcFRr!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x39e6a500ffffffff:0x23a61f2ea1d6c738) which suggests that it is Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Once again, we appear to have confusion about the status of affiliated colleges in India. These are not "part" of the university to which they are affiliated. They are entirely independent institutions whose degrees are simply accredited by those universities. A merger would thus be entirely inappropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And there is a specific reliable source, besides the College's own page, that indicates factual evidence to support your statement that Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education actually is not Harkamaya College of Education? Because at this point there is significant ambiguity about the existence of the institution and it's organization. Don't throw around simplistic statements. In any case, a merger of affiliated colleges has been done where appropriate. See College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Additionally, according to the Harkayama website Sikkim University awards the degrees at Harkamaya College of Education. It could be easily argued that there is no difference between this type of organization and traditional Collegiate university or between this and remote distance learning sites at American institutions with satellite locations. 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • It can actually be easily argued that there is a very definite difference. It has in fact been so argued successfully numerous times before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I would add that this college pre-dates Sikkim University, so cannot be considered part of it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 86.17.222.157, absolutely it can. If an institution has a relationship to another then it can be considered a part of another institution founded later. Mergers and separations happen. So do other formal and informal partnership agreements between institutions. See List of university and college mergers in the United States for a litany of examples. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You are simply using guesswork here rather than recognise that your interpretation of "affiliated" has been explained to be wrong. For the first years of its existence this college was affiliated with one university, and then when a state university was established in Sikkim it switched affiliation. This is a demonstration that "affiliated with" does not mean "part of". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Thank you for repeating ad naseum your opinion. Affiliations can change, time in case you weren't aware, goes on. Your opinion does not discount my posts above and your are not 'correct' in defining how it should be shown anymore than I am. As I stated above the degree granting institution is Sikkim University. Even so, there is precedent that two independent affiliated universities can exist on the same page as in College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. So your point to me is not relevant and does not have any meaningful bearing on whether to keep, or, delete the page. In any case, I believe that based on the lack of notable references we should move forward in merging all of the 'affiliated' small institutions with the page that contains the degree granting institution. This is in effect how collegiate university are currently shown and an appropriate way of explaining their relationships to the reader. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I am baffled that the keep !voters would rather argue the finer points of institutional affiliation and accreditation in India than simply provide a few sources. If this organisation is actually notable, it shouldn't be this hard to prove it. – Joe (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untouchable (2011 short film)[edit]

Untouchable (2011 short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable student film lacking in-depth sourcing. Perhaps redirect to Kelly Marie Tran. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Because this is a student film more than five years old, notability on the film directly fails WP:NOTFILM. However there is other evidence of notability: significant involvement by a notable person. This is Kelly Marie Tran's first film credit of her career. Viapicante (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Like all the films Brad Pitt did before Thelma & Louise that have returned to haunt the FYE/iTunes bargain bin with their beginner Photoshop and Windows Movie Maker DVD menus, this is among its ilk for sure. It's a student film that would barely be noticed at all if not for said actress in film (a great actress mind you) not being in a certain film series involving intractable fights between factions in outer space. The actress isn't even top-billed in this, so a redirect would be an unlikely target. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - According to her IMDb profile, she is most known for this project next to Star Wars. Also, she is a main cast member in Unotuchable according to the film's poster on IMDb.Viapicante (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment If someone spammed the site enough she could be 'most notable' for a thanks on a random film or even something like an adult film that would violate WP:BLP. That's why we don't use IMDb as a source. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep this film is how a very prominent actress got her start and it has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources because of that. Notability established. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Brief mentions and single line entries are far from adequate coverage to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Notability not inherited, no real sourcing of the topic outside Tran, no evidence of independent notability, etc etc. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- fails WP:NFILM. A "student short film drama" screams non-notable. No indications of a cult following or significant impact. Notability is not inherited from the notable performer, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2018 Boys' U18 Volleyball European Championship Qualification[edit]

2018 Boys' U18 Volleyball European Championship Qualification (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)

Unnecessary article about Qualifications, either delete or possible merge into 2018_Boys'_U18_Volleyball_European_Championship Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think most of qualification pages are separared from main competition pages. So, I want to know 1.what criteria to tell which one should have or shouldn't? 2.The qualification page of previous edition (2017) will be deleted or not if this page delete. Noncommittalp (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete or Merge SeraphWiki (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This is the only case where their is actually a qualification tournament to enter the main tournament. You can't possibly merge the two as the qualification looks out of place in the final tournament and doesn't show that it was actually part of the tournament. Yeah you could try and work it, but would it work, I don't think it would. Secondly, if you want to delete this, you may as well delete the 2013, 2015 and 2017 qualifying areas for those editions as they have been created and we are not talking about them. I can't think of any more for this current time but I am going to stay keep them for now. Matt294069 is coming 08:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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