< 4 January	6 January >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Highly promotional and completely lacking in sourcing; the article is very much a stand-in for a jubilant organizational website. Four pages of Google hits did not give me a single reliable citation that indicates it passes the GNG or CORP. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate non-profit marching arts group from the Atlanta area, not a corporation. They participate in the Drum Corps Associates league. They also have an active facebook page here. No reason to delete. IAmJohnGalt (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like marching bands, but I could not find the reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Facebook, the group's, website, and Youtube videos are not adequate.The wins in competitions are not enough. Being a "legitimate non-profit marching arts group" does not entitle this organization to have an article in Wikipedia as the previous poster implies. Edison (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are all non-RS, including Facebook. I did a check of Google News and Google Books and could find nothing else. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about sources like Jupiter Music or Dynasty Band or Cherokee Tribune?IAmJohnGalt (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources and promotional wording makes this article no good for Wikipedia. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ellen Petry Leanse. The notability of the author needs its own discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Happiness Hack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Closest thing to a claim of notability in the article is being on a top-12-productivity-books-of-the-year list from Evernote... which is a scheduling app, not what we would usually consider a significant source for such. The 100 word review in Library Journal is not in-depth coverage. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellen Petry Leanse. While I agree with the nom (no significant and reliable reviews available to meet NBOOK or GNG threshold), we could redirect the article to the author's page, which already contains details about the book. Lourdes 22:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that article, at best, is in need of some work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. I understand that. But a redirect seems a good alternative to deletion till the author's page still exists on Wikipedia. Lourdes 03:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Unsourced self-help promotional psycho-babble. BLP of its author should be deleted too. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I would be fine with a redirect so long as the other article exists. I do not have time at the moment to do the WP:BEFORE on that article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author. Not a notable book. Natureium (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the sources mentioned by the sole keep !vote haven't convinced anyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. This source, which was cited in the article and is the lengthiest source, is driven by user-submitted articles. This source is a primary source, blog-style interview. Other sources cited are blogs or self-published. A search for additional sources to support notability was not successful. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not supported by reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supported by being the primary subject of news articles found in references. Lazz_R 16:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazz R: Could you list some of the "news articles" which were listed in the references? I must have missed them. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 Lazz_R 14:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this is a charting musician or prominent in any way, as required by WP:MUSICBIO. Mattg82 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Treetear (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This artist has not met the threshold of WP:MUSICBIO. He may hold promise for the a future WP:AfC, but at this time he does not have the requisite WP:SIGCOV, WP:SECONDARY, or even WP:OR. Perhaps at another time this artist is will meet WP:ENT; however, he does not at this time. Ventric (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave this one a look after the re-listing. Re: the keep vote: the two sources cited as reliable coverage are small time, unimportant sources and are more trivial/run-of-mill promotional. There is nothing significant that I can find regarding this subject. Most charitably this could be considered WP:TOOSOON ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Burbridge[edit]

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

Non-notable director. While he has some credits in notable productions, there is no in depth coverage to support an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Found 4 refs on Google. Maybe a TOOSOON. South Nashua (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial mentions only. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Medicine[edit]

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

Very difficult to find coverage due to name. No significant coverage to pass WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of creating this article. Zeimusu | Talk page 22:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and creator. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it seems odd to argue for notability when the article creator argues for deletion, it does look like this was a genuinely notable organization with adequate reliable source mentions to establish notability. Here are a few significant mentions in notable news media, from the NYT, the WaPo, and the LAT. There are some book mentions too, albeit in a minor role: "Health Care in Muslim Asia", "Killing the Cranes". They were mentioned in a brief funding line item in a Congressional report here, and one of their old monitoring reports is archived at USAID's website here. I saw other mentions, but I think these are adequate to establish notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources to pass GNG. "The absence of sources or citations" in an article does not determine notability. My interest was raised when I read that it was a 15 day trek by pack animals to get supplies from Peshawar to Afghanistan Transportation/Medical Supply Line (number X, pp 8) that was listed above. The organization is/was affiliated (connected) with the "Afghanistan Relief Committee" (ARC), a non-government organization (NGO) or charitable private voluntary organization (PVO), providing school, medical, or other humanitarian relief, and monitored by Medicins San Frontiers Sweden (MSF-Sweden), that is on the United Nations "Approved list of Humanitarian Relief Providers for Afghanistan". Humanitarian organizations receive private funding but also from U.S. aid to Afghanistan as foreign assistance. In FY 2015 the US "foreign assistance" (world) budget was $48.57 billion with approximately $7.6 billion (16%) (pp. 8) allocated for humanitarian activities, of which the ARC receives funding. Sonia Nassery Cole was a board member of ARC (providing some deorphaning) before founding Afghanistan World Foundation in 2002. A problem I had was digging through the Google lists dominated by "Operation Freedom", "Enduring Freedom" and others in the top search results but there is more "out there". Otr500 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also found a Penn Museum archieved article and under "Medical Facilities in Afghanistan" (volume 44, issue 3) giving evidence of clinics in the rural Logar and Wardak provinces staffed and visited by traveling "Freedom Medical" paramedics. The author discusses the cultural factors affecting Afghan notions regarding health care issus and women. Otr500 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Appalachian State University#Publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History Matters[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (apart from a library catalog and a copy of text from the journal's own website on the UNC Dept. of History website). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, journal is one of the most popular undergraduate history journals in the United States, and is frequently mentioned in lists of notable undergraduate journals alongside Georgetown, Tufts, Yale, and Harvard University's respective undergraduate history journals. I used the library catalogue source to show that the journal is indexed in the ESBCOhost American History catalogue, I would've gone straight to ESBCOhosts journal index but there is a paywall. At the very least, the journal is notable for being one of the few and first journals focusing on the work of undergrads, in fact, UNC Chapel Hill consulted with the editorial board of History Matters, as well as other universities with undergrad journals when they were creating their own undergraduate journal of history. So at the very least, the journal is considered notable enough to be an authority on publish undergraduate works. As for independent sources, there are numerous university websites that mention the journal as a potential publishing source for undergraduate students. Jp16103 19:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its just rubbish, delete it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.62.200 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Jp16103 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Appalachian_State_University#Publications. The remark from the IP user above seems just opinion, and doesn't cite policy, so can be ignored, and the earlier comment does come from the article creator. I must admit to wanting to retain this article (my personal bias), but I can find few grounds to do so. Summary text by the journal has been repeated on other university websites and has then been cited here. These don't count, but at least shows its worthy of being included in another organisations useful links. It would be helpful if the article creator could find evidence that helps meets WP:JOURNALCRIT - although the link they've provided above shows its opinion and advice has indeed been sought by others, but these don't quite do enough to prove notability or that it influential in its field. As it's unlikely ever to be expanded much, a redirect seems appropriate with perhaps a brief merge/expansion of the entry in the Appalachian State University article, at least until such evidence is forthcoming. I think justifies inclusion as a link in List of history journals. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Appalachian State University#Publications. The appearance of this journal on various university websites as a venue for undergraduates to publish indicates that the journal is respectable, but there just doesn't seem to be enough information out there to write an article much more substantial than we already have here. Basically, we have grounds to include this as part of a larger whole, but it doesn't quite stand as a page on its own. The story might be different if the writings by people who used History Matters as an example (e.g., [1]) had more in-depth discussion of it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Appalachian State University. This fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After reviewing everyone's comments, I've come to agree with all of you that the article should just be merged with the ASU page. Jp16103 00:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrman Mitchell[edit]

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

Not nearly as notable as his business partner, Romaldo Giurgola. The few brief mentions I found were in articles about his partner. Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- borders on A7. The firm he cofounded is not notable, so there's no suitable redirect target. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this could be a redirect to the more famed Romaldo Giurgola as wikireaders may wonder about the "other guy" who founded Mitchell/Giugola Architects (note that Mitchell's name is first), as for "the firm he cofounded is non-notable, that is debatable (rather there is not yet a wikiarticle on it) ie. it was one of the most important firms of the "Philadelphia School," (of architecture), has been commissioned to design numerous iconic buildings throughout the world including the Liberty Bell Pavilion and Parliament House, Canberra, and has received a number of design awards, its architects are also award-winning, but i digress:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think GNG (and possibly WP:ANYBIO) is met. [2] (from the Almanac of Architecture & Design, which I can't vouch for), [3] (Pacific Coast Architecture Database, which isn't user-generated but does include "relatively unknown and unhearlded designers"), and [4] (National Park Service bio) are all significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess the sources that power~enwiki has uncovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or include in an article on the firm. The sources noted above cocer his work with the firm and other aspects of his studies and career substantially. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the citations which are significant coverage aren't about this architect, rather they are mostly about the firm, or his partner. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite listed above is in fact about this subject. Other coverage does relate to his wprk at the firm and in partnership with another architect, but there is no article on the firm. If you wish to modify this entry to be about the firm I don't think anyone would mind. But the subject is covered substantially in reliable independent sources whether we treat it distinctly or under an umbrella topic. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A brief blurb in an almanac which appears to list thousands of architects is hardly significant coverage. While accomplished, he does not appear to rise to the level to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559). And possibly elsewhere. Sandstein 22:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1558–1566)[edit]

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

Fictional conflict. All the supposed encounters listed in the article either didn't happen (there was no siege of Malacca in 1558), or happened outside the time frame or belong in a more appropriate page such as the Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559). The Portuguese and Turks actually abstained from fighting between 1559 until 1580. Crenelator (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is just over 10 years old. Is it a Wikipedia hoax or one that originated elsewhere? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Frankly I believe it might just be the product of someone's lack of proper sources. Crenelator (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then is Clodtfelter (who mentions Malacca) drawing on Wikipedia for his data? Is this another Bicholim? Kges1901 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the source and, yeah, it's full of errors. Crenelator (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. The sole content that isn't background (in terms of the date range, and I'm looking at 1559+ as we have a 1538-1559 article) is this sentence in the lead - During this period, the Ottomans attacked Portuguese ships, forts, and settlements in the Indian Ocean, Asia and East Africa. This period came to an end in 1566, with the death of Suleiman the Magnificent, and the Ottoman Empire's following acceptance of Portugal's domination of the Indian Ocean. - which is un-sourced and seems to describe possible piracy and raiding and not much more.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge subsection. The "1558" siege of Malacca appears to be based on a typo (see Siege of Malacca (1568)). There was, however, a siege of Bahrain in 1559. See Fuccaro (2009) Histories of City and State in the Persian Gulf: Manama Since 1800 p. 60. This, however, belongs in Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) where it is currently mentioned but not specifically referenced. There is something to be said for merging the remaining text and references from Ottoman–Portuguese_conflicts_(1558–1566)#Persian_Gulf to Ottoman–Portuguese_conflicts_(1538–1559)#Aftermath which is currently unreferenced. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aftermath section of Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559). These sorts of conflicts probably did not end in a clear peace treaty, so that further minor conflicts are to be expected. This article attempts to draw together events at Malacca and Bahrain and make them a single conflict, when they are a great distance apart. I would be surprised if the Ottomans has much influence in Aceh. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and explanation by 24.151.116.12. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) as per above. I'm also pinging WT:MILHIST about this AfD power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give it another week to see if folks from the WikiProject that power~enwiki pinged want to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1559) per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Hill School. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of headmasters of The Hill School[edit]

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

List of high school principals. Does not pass WP:SAL, almost all of the people in the list do not pass WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - back to The Hill School as an unneeded content FORK. Redirects are cheap. John from Idegon (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've merged the table into the school article (I've not included the education part tho), nothing links to the List or article so pointless keeping around, Pinging John from Idegon incase they wanna go with Delete now. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to The Hill School, as has already been done and which should have been the primary solution considered in the first place. I'm not sure why the nominator didn't consider WP:PRESERVE as a way to keep the content, but not the standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can always count on you for snide remarks, thank you! Maybe it doesn't deserve a merge because it is trivial information, did you ever think of that? I don't think we usually keep historical lists of high school principals in other articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - content is now in The Hill School making this article an unneccessary content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hill School where all the pertinent information already exists. The information added to the bio listings in this article is almost entirely not notable for a stand-alone article ("enjoyed tennis"? really?). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Hill School.Vorbee (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a random question Alansohn & Eggishorn but what's the benefit(s) of keeping this as a redirect ? .... No one's going to search for "List of Headmasters at <school name>" because the articles on this topic are next to none .... It just seems pointless keeping this? .... Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I wouldn't mourn the loss of the redirect, but there are several other articles of elite private schools that exist in the format "List of headmasters of...", so it's not inconceivable that someone might assume that this article exists. Redirects are rather inexpensive; it probably costs more to delete them than keep them, especially in such cases. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess readers could search for it, Okie dokie thanks for replying I'll just close this as redirect seems pointless keeping this. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the AFD being reopened and all COMMONSENSE going out the window I've undone my merge and as such editors can judge both articles, My apologies for speedying things up here obviously we all have to wait like children for the next 7 days. –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge. a separate list is not required. The school is important enough that each of the headmasters might be separately notable , but that's a different question . DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I already merged this with AfD open which it what should happen, I've reverted the merge and decided to participate, I find it hard to believe such a short list could have any other outcome. I see no issue with merging this and leaving AfD open for the seven days, but I disagree with an early close. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Wrong venue (As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT this discussion can be moved by any uninvolved editor to the talk page of the article.) WP:SPINOUT articles are not subject to deletion, as the remedy is to unspin them. This is a decision made at the article or the article talk page by content contributors, whereas the authority of AfD is that of absentee landlords. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that says a spinout article cannot be deleted, especially when the article contains trivial information. This is the same "nothing can be deleted because of the existence of ATD" argument that you make everywhere else.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence from any relevant policies or the applicable editing guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (Selective merge) to the article about the school.A non-notable list. Follow Wikipedia:Merging and leave a redirect behind, as well as putting the required notice on the talk page of the target article and at least a comment in the revision history of the source article, to preserve the contribution history. The presence of the redirect might dissuade some editor in the future from creating the list again in ignorance of the AFD. Merger is an acceptable outcome of an AFD. It is inappropriate to swoop in and make an article disappear while it is being discussed at AFD. Edison (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A2, foreign language article that exists on another Wikipedia ... discospinster _talk 19:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ələddin Mahmudov[edit]

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

Azerbaijani Wikipedia copy and paste Uhooep (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A2 criteria. Copy and pasted from Azerbaijani WP. PriceDL (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the two "Must not be Deleted" because the editors did not add any sources or indeed anything relevant to keeping to the article, and made no argument here. Sandstein 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veeramadevi[edit]

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

Contested Prod without explanation original reason was "Does not satisfy WP:NFF." This is a future film which has yet to begin principle photography. PRehse (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No indication that principal photography has started and so per WP:NFF, and I quote 'Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles'. David.moreno72 09:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any information about project release date. Up until such info is release, it's uncertain and hence WP:NFF. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Must not be Deleted I think it's good now ^🦂😎 Nabeelgm 😎^🦂(Talk)•°(contribs) Nabeel Gm 16:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Must not be Deleted I think it must not be deleted .2405:204:73CA:EFB0:834:7B70:F50D:FE49 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Strayer[edit]

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

Robert L. Strayer was an Army officer assigned to the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He commanded the 2nd Battalion and was later the executive officer of the regiment. He left the Army in 1945. He was minimally represented in both the book and the miniseries. Neither his Highest rank (Colonel) nor highest award (Silver Star) qualify him for a page under WP:SOLDIER. Post-War, was involved in insurance. He resided with his wife in both Pennsylvania and Florida. News articles were generally about social and family events (two of the three references in our article are to different versions of his wife's obituary), earning Strayer no notability. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NSolidier and GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like the others, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to other BoB bit players, doesn't meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOLDIER. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Silva[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reason given. Initial concern remains valid: player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Didn't you remove Liga MX Femenil (the league she plays in) from WP:FPL Fenix down? (ref) and then come to my user talk page with this? and this a day later?

Actually, you have quite a history of removing women's leagues from any section of the essay which you are citing here - why is that? Hmlarson (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you had not bothered trying to achieve consensus. The discussion which I started after doing so is clearly linked in the deletion rationale highlighting that consensus has not yet been achieved. Please keep discussion in this page specifically to the notability of this player. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Jaramillo Hmlarson (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~ Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrew my vote I am afraid I am not very familar with AfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. With reference to the specific sources in the article:

ligafemenil.mx - Primary source, not suitable for GNG
fmfstateofmind.com - match day summary, routine coverage, with only a brief mention of the player. No significant coverage.
mediotiempo.com - article focusing on the team, not the player, briefly mentioned in one sentence, no significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 Hhhhhkohhhhh - Can you tell us if you have a previous user name or account? Hmlarson (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: No! This is my first account. Before I created this account, I used IP to edit. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please try to work on the basis that this is a good faith nomination and focus on discussing the notability of this player here. If you have issues with a particular editor you are well aware that there are other more appropriate forums for these to be aired. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG and not accepted as a fully pro league due to low level salaries Atlantic306 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, non-notable athlete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Estrada[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reason given. Initial concern remains valid: player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only one game played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG and not accepted as a fully pro league due to low level salaries Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julissa Dávila[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reason given. Initial concern remains valid: player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG and not accepted as a fully pro league due to low level salaries Atlantic306 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giselle Rendón[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reason given. Initial concern remains valid: player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Discussion here failed to achieve consensus that the league was fully professional. With only a small handful of games played and no indication of international appearances at any level, it is doubtful that the player could satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG and not accepted as a fully pro league due to low level salaries Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MC Mack[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The peak chart position claims in this article all refer to a different artist Craig Mack. Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable and as the nom says, chart data and a lot of references are from Craig Mack with just renamed titles. A lot of general information given in the article isn't verifiable, and doesn't seem to be true. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete When I first saw the billboard charting references, I was almost going to oppose this nomination. Then I looked deeper & read your argument, noticed that the names do not line up in the first line of the article and who the references were for. You are correct, it appears to be references for Craig Mack backing up this person, where they are not even mentioned. With that said, the Craig Mack article does not mention him being from Memphis, which one of the sources for the one currently under review do. That could lead to some confusion. ~~My gut instinct is to either redirect or delete and redirect, but am going to see about looking more into this first.~~ (see below) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: redirect, TheSandDoctor? What do you want to redirect to, the article for Craig Mack? This guy has absolutely nothing to do with Craig Mack... the links to Craig Mack's references are simply an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and add fake notability. The two albums in the discography do exist (he's put out more since then), but their chart positions and certifications are fake, as is the record label (MC Mack releases his music on his own Kami Kaze production label) and even the release dates (his first album didn't come out until 2000). He was never a member of Three6 Mafia, despite the claims in the text, just an associate. The Google Books reference leads to a book about Arctic exploration. In short, the claims and references in the article are fake and the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you that it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, no argument there. I made that comment just before I had to attend a lecture (so just left it a "comment" with full intention to research further & come back to this). At the time, I initially thought MC Mac to be a probable nickname/alias of Craig Mac but, after further research, it does not appear to be the case (Side note: MC EZ was a nickname of Craig's). Based on the above research, I have changed by comment to a delete vote. Thank you regardless for the reminder to come back to this though Ritchie333!

(Now, if you'll excuse me, I have another lecture in a couple of minutes so, off off & away!

) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, I can see you're busy with lectures, as in your ping above I think you accidentally confused me with another editor! Apologies if I came across as a bit sharp to you in my previous post, I was just confused by your redirect proposal and wanted some clarification. Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I did indeed accidentally ping the wrong user Richard3120 (Sorry for the accidental ping Ritchie333!), I should've looked closer when responding, so I do apologize to the both of you for that (Should've noticed something when the admin highlighter script didnt go off on your name as it does tend to work most of the time (am just used to my main computer where sometimes Chrome doesn't load it properly, so didn't flinch at it not showing up), but alas I didn't - that and the names are similar to an extent). Hopefully my explanation of my comment helped shed some light on it/made sense Richard. If not, please do let me know. Also, it wasn't really a proposal nor was it my official !vote, it was merely my gut reaction - which I was going to research further before making a !vote, I just didn't have the time at the time (as I said above). --Happy editing! TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delving into some of the references (plus a few others not in the article,like [5]), he does genuinely appear to have been involved in a small way with Three 6 Mafia, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the fact that their music charted and went platinum doesn't mean this person meets WP:NMUSIC. He doesn't appear in some of the other cited references at all. I could be persuaded to change my!vote if someone can show some good WP:RS, but I've failed to find any. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Fisher[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Bit part/voice actor in animations. No in-depth sources in mainstream media. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, failing that wikify to my namespace if it is to be deleted, for further work. Original PROD explanation is incorrect, it is not just animations this actress has starred in. Nightfury 09:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has had only one marginally significant role, and that was as a voice actress, which is not as noted a type of role as being a live actress. Not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been nominated for, and won, several awards for her voice work already. Now has the lead role in the film Eighth Grade, screening at Sundance in a week or two. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. WP:ENT is met. While the referencing is poor, it will probably improve once her next film is released later this month. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she’s known for being Agnes in the first two Despicable Me films, although I do think the article could expand a bit. JE98 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes ENT. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Car Show[edit]

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

Non notable event - two sources have been placed on the article, one to advertise said event and another isn't really related to the subject, other than saying its a similar event in the same venue, at the same time. SoWhy originaly closed the speedy that I placed on the article, on grounds that it may be notable, however looking at the logs it was deleted in the past for being advertising. Nightfury 08:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEVENT. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walking on the Milky Way (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable; unsupported for it's entire duration of existence. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 06:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and not an album of any significance (did not chart in national charts etc.) The article claims that the album was nominated for Best Children's Album at the 1993 ARIAs, but this does not prove notability. The lack of any coverage in independent sources means the album is not notable regardless (see WP:ALBUM: albums "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines"). Kb.au (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:NALBUM#4 being nominated for an ARIA Award (equivalent to Grammy for US artists) is major music award in Australia.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with Shaidar cuebiyar, notable album due to its ARIA nomination.Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM with ARIA nomination. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Franciscus Henri. The ARIA nomination is a reasonable claim of significance, but unless someone can come up with further sources, we don't have enough to write about it to justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a rough consensus that the subject's position at the Orthodox Union is not enough to establish notability. – Joe (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weil[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, sources are either local or from his organization's website. The article was created by a WP:SPA and is promotional. Rusf10 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is an executive with the OU and the sources there are not all from the OU, there's the Jewish Standard and VIN, and there is no policy that says a news source has to be national. Your claim of SPA is also laughable. The article has been here for years and edited by many editors so your SPA claim is just trying to muddy the waters. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a executive with OU is not a claim to notability. He was a senior managing director, not president. The OU currently has over 50 executives. The Jewish Standard is a local paper out of Teaneck, NJ. And this article has been almost exclusively edited by multiple SPA accounts (other than some cleanups). That's why from day one it has read like a promotion.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided from the spectrum of media -- both in the article and available elsewhere -- that support hist strong claim of notability, go above and beyond the minimums of the notability standard. Issues of cleanup -- the alleged "promotional" content -- should be addressed through cleanup, not deletion. As has happened too many times before, it appears that the nominator has not bothered to follow the requirements of WP:BEFORE, an essential aspect of the deletion process. Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has happened too many times before, the above editor cannot distinguish between press releases/local news coverage and significant coverage in reliable sources, an essential aspect of meeting notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ passes V, NOR, N. I have no problem with local sources used here except the hagiographic praise section should be cut as unencyclopedic and not RS (praise should be cited to an independent source if included at all). Also other quotes in article could be trimmed or cut. With those issues I am concerned about neutrality of POV but these are addressable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my !vote. Yoninah is right. When I originally looked at the citation in Vos iz Neias, the article implied that Weil's role was quite important. However, looking more closely at the OU web page, it seems there are quite a few vice-presidents and Weil's position is no longer at that level. Then, rereading the Vos iz Neias article, that article looks more and more like a press release and less reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm neither !voting for or against deletion for this page at this time. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. He does not hold a high-ranking position in the OU and there is little independent secondary sourcing on him. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this meets minimal notability requirements. IZAK (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable individual. The article's sources are not suitable for establishing notability, containing material such as: "Weil stated at the time that he would focus on Orthodox Jewish outreach for teens and networking with Orthodox community leadership". Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service nor is it suitable location for tribute pages such as this. Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG for lack of independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I was about to say this was a keeper based on the OU position, but upon looking at the OU hierarchy - OU: contact (where he is listed) and OU Lay leadership - seems this is 1-2 notches from the top. The PR from his appointment reads: Rabbi Steven Weil, today, July 1, 2009, officially assumes the position of Executive Vice President, the chief professional officer of the Orthodox Union. In that capacity, he will have day-to-day responsibility for running the largest Orthodox synagogue umbrella group in the world, overseeing its staff and programs, maintaining fiscal responsibility, and above all, projecting an image of leadership and vision throughout the Orthodox Jewish community worldwide.. Now - he might be notable - but the sourcing in the article is not sufficient - this is OU's website where his title is specified and nothing else, here he is interviewed on some points, and this looks like a PR release of his appointment. A BEFORE does show some more sources - but it is not obvious he passes GNG. If someone does a WP:HEY I am amendable to changing my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is unclear that Weill's position at OU is notable. The organization has a plethora of titles: president, chairman, senior vice presidents, national vice presidents, associate vice presidents, board of directors, and board of governors, none of which includes Weil. While Weil may be a senior managing director, the title doesn't even appear on the chart of OU positions. Rhadow (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yaoi. There was also the idea floated of creating Category:Yaoi games. I see no consensus on that, but if somebody also wants to create that, there's nothing here to stand in their way. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of yaoi games[edit]

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

Unneeded list of mostly red-linked articles that is not and cannot be in any way comprehensive of the genre, along with the only relevant information at the top being better suited on each article's page. Basically Listcruft. Tarage (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are too many red-links, but that's a cleanup matter. There are enough blue links to justify a list on the topic, and there doesn't appear to be any other page on the genre that this could be merged with. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. There are so few blue items that making a list of them is meaningless. Beyond that none of the information in the article is worth keeping. At best it should be moved to the respective games. --Tarage (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft that is better served by a category, similar to Category:Yuri (genre) video games._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is another good point. I didn't want to say it in the opening statement because of the 'other stuff' argument but there is no Yuri list, nor for any other niche fetish. I agree whole heatedly that a category would serve much better, and that any relevant information from this article be transferred either to it's respecting game article or to the yaoi article itself. --Tarage (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I support creating Category:Yaoi games and keeping Category:Yuri (genre) video games, just like we have Category:Yaoi anime and manga and Category:Yuri (genre) anime and manga. At the moment, List of yaoi games has only 12 blue links, and it's basically just a list of titles. There are no comments about the games, characters, production, reception, etc. aside from a few lines at the introduction, so I think that at the moment we can delete the list because we would be better served by a category. On the other hand, I'd probably support keeping the yaoi list if it had more blue links and more information. Also, whenever possible, the games mentioned there probably should be added to List of video games with LGBT characters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Boys' love video games or Yaoi video games as this has the potential to be an article. I generally prefer the former as I believe that "yaoi" hasn't reached common enough use for people to know what it is. It would also allow the article to cover the broader topic of games featuring male homosexual relationships instead of games that include explicit homosexual content. —Farix (t | c) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not fold it into the Yaoi article then? There sure as heck isn't enough in the pitiful amount of information that's currently there. --Tarage (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because yaoi is explicit sexual content. While all the games listed feature male homosexual relationship, they don't all include explicit sexual content. —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "yaoi" or "yuri" implies explicit content, in any context. The article states "romantic OR sexual". All it means is that there is a gay relationship as the main focus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Yaoi neither page is prohibitively large, agree that there isn't enough here for a standalone list. --J04n(talk page) 16:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of position I am fine with merging. I just don't think a list of Yaoi games should exist in it's current form. Moving them into the LGBT games list and what little there is into the Yaoi article is perfectly fine with me. --Tarage (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? All right, merge to Yaoi. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC) and any other appropriate article. Insufficient apparent standalone notability, but would fit into other articles. Sandstein 22:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yaoi. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Yaoi. Yaoi is not a very prominent genre of video games, either in terms of media coverage or the number of representative games released. The topic should at least be mentioned in the Yaoi article, but there just isn't enough to support a standalone list article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanda College Astronomical Society[edit]

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

The article is an amateur high school astronomy group. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Previous PROD was removed without addressing the issue of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A school club which lacks significant coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails to meet WP:ORGCRITE.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of this article is unsourced, but I have little doubt that it could be sourced from the Society's publications. But that's the problem -- there's virtually no one talking about this organisation other than itself. The one non-primary source in the article is local (i.e., Colombo) coverage and my own searches found only a little more of the same. About two months before this article was created, the Society did manage to get a directory listing on the website of Sky & Telescope (as seen here), but that also will not be enough to justify an article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthem Sound[edit]

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

Not meeting minimum notability requirements as per WP:BAND. Fails at WP:GNG. Though, this article was published in 2007, it is still unsourced. I am unable to find any reliable references to verify notability as per WP:V. Hitro talk 11:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The article was created by "Theanthemsound" in 2005 presumably for publicity purposes and the text is all OR. It looks like they recorded one EP released on a small indie label and then split up within months of the EP's release. The blue link for one of the band members leads to an article for a different person of the same name. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BAND; also as noted above, most article content is WP:PROMO and cannot be independently verified. I didn't do the most thorough search (I'm assuming nominator did WP:BEFORE nomination) but I couldn't find any reliable sources either. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Ministries of India[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable organisation. Tagged for over 4 years as such, with no improvement in notability claimed or sourced. Mattg82 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources for the article to meet the GNG/ORG threshold. Lourdes 15:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not satisfying WP:ORG--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get 112 hits, and among them I find none reliable worth adding. Subject fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations; delete per policy. Sam Sailor 15:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Gomez (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The other link just is a red link lol. 333 -blue 10:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently not (anymore). You'll have to first Speedy or Afd Olivia Gómez and then bring this to Afd. Or editors may wish to have both discussions right now right here. As it stands right now, I'll recommend ~~Keep~~ ing the article, focusing on Olivia Gómez's notability, and then revisiting this disambiguated page. Thanks, Lourdes 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Olivia Gomez (disambiguation) was created 2018-01-05T09:57:29‎. Olivia Gómez was created 2018-01-05T10:00:48‎. The DAB was nominated for deletion 5 minutes later at 10:06:06. Olivia Gómez would have been redlinked on the DAB, because the DAB's server cache was not yet updated. See WP:PURGE. Sam Sailor 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Gómez will be probably deleted. The only source is a low quality imdb page.Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even satisfying WP:TWODABS. I've nominated the Spanish actress (one minor credit) for deletion as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right. Even if the other article doesn't get deleted (as it looks, it will get deleted), it's more sensible to link it from the first article than to have a dab. I've struck my keep !vote and am perfectly okay with Delete. Lourdes 03:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in any case. We either have a TWODABS case (very unlikely), or when Olivia Gómez gets deleted no need for a DAB either. Sam Sailor 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StraightOn Recordings[edit]

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

written as ad, also this label has not released records for a long time and the website is down Robcuiper (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks partly like an ad. Other reasons mentioned by the nominator are irrelevant to notability. However, there are no reliable sources I could find that could help the recording label satisfy GNG/ORG. Lourdes 10:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable record label. Founders are not notable (blue link is a re-direct). No roster of notable artists. No discussion of topic in reliable sources that I can find. Via press releases and social media postings I can confirm this label existed, but that's about it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Record company that existed from c. 2002 and folded before 2011; the last time their web page was archived was in 2010, but they may have stopped their activities even earlier around 2008. I have found no book sources or news sources, and skimming the 1950 other hits I get, I find nothing to add. Fails GNG, del per policy. Sam Sailor 15:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bart 123 has a WP:COI and everybody else advocates deletion. Sandstein 22:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-3D[edit]

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

Non-notable computer program. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what the criterion for non-notable is, but the binaries were downloaded 24000 times in 2017. K-3D is currently in maintenance-only mode and maintained mostly by me. Also, Dsmatthews has no conflict of interest editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart 123 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the COI tag; unrelated to the AfD nomination
Hi. I don't remember having mentioned anything about Dsmatthews being connected, neither here nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia. So, what happened that you tried to defend against a charge that is not even brought up? Are you his sock? —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] See here Bart 123 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] It has no mention of Dsmatthews whatsoever. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] To whom does the COI refer then? I suppose it can be removed? —Bart 123 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] You are dodging the question. As a single-purpose account, you'd better show some transparency. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] I am coming around to the idea that your mention of Dsmatthews was a totally benign one. You just didn't know better; let's just say that he did stuff that a couple of administators didn't approve of. Alright. I am dropping this case. Just please, as much as possible, comment on the nomination, not on contributors. I am sorry if things got unpleasant. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I propose that the below undo action be activated as no further information to justify the COI claim has been provide despite requests directed at it's author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K-3D&action=edit&undoafter=818744946&undo=818745217 Dsmatthews (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Oh, hello. Maybe I must refresh your memory: In the edit summary of revision 810005717, you wrote: "I am a subject expert (developer of said software, check the credits in it!)". Oh, and please stick to the etiquette, would you? —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] OK got what we needed, note the time stamp. I reiterate the proposal to remove COI claim as it is still unproven and no direct rebuttal was offered, even how it could work is unproven as subject is not a commercial product. Dsmatthews (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the COI tag; unrelated to the AfD nomination

Hi. I don't remember having mentioned anything about Dsmatthews being connected, neither here nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia. So, what happened that you tried to defend against a charge that is not even brought up? Are you his sock? —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here Bart 123 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has no mention of Dsmatthews whatsoever. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To whom does the COI refer then? I suppose it can be removed? —Bart 123 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are dodging the question. As a single-purpose account, you'd better show some transparency. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming around to the idea that your mention of Dsmatthews was a totally benign one. You just didn't know better; let's just say that he did stuff that a couple of administators didn't approve of. Alright. I am dropping this case. Just please, as much as possible, comment on the nomination, not on contributors. I am sorry if things got unpleasant. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I propose that the below undo action be activated as no further information to justify the COI claim has been provide despite requests directed at it's author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K-3D&action=edit&undoafter=818744946&undo=818745217 Dsmatthews (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello. Maybe I must refresh your memory: In the edit summary of revision 810005717, you wrote: "I am a subject expert (developer of said software, check the credits in it!)". Oh, and please stick to the etiquette, would you? —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK got what we needed, note the time stamp.
I reiterate the proposal to remove COI claim as it is still unproven and no direct rebuttal was offered, even how it could work is unproven as subject is not a commercial product. Dsmatthews (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Expanding on my previous comment, I will concede I have a lot to learn about Wiki editing, so before making some points against the proposal for deletion, let me clarify some things:

I am not a sock, but Dsmatthews did draw my attention to this AFD request. In the interest of full disclosure, the discussion is here. From reading up on the Wikipedia guidelines I see now that this qualifies as "meatpuppetry", but that was not my intention.
This is not a single-purpose account, I created it when I saw broken links in the totally unrelated Chicken Gun page, two years ago.
Regarding the mailing list discussion cited above, I am in no position to judge so I give the legitimacy of this AFD request the benefit of the doubt and will support my argument below.

So now for the actual arguments:

K-3D is included in most major distributions:

Download numbers were cited before
Inspired by other deletion discussions, I found a book link: there is a book on 3D printing mentioning it.
another, less notable book
It is mentioned on sculpteo

Bart 123 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bart 123. For upholding the etiquette, your valuable research in about notablility and for the transparency. I hope there is no hard feeling between us. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not standing out from the rest WP:COOKIE--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-3D is not run-of-the-mill in the sense that the pipeline mentioned in the article still works in a quite unique way. At the height of its popularity, it was considered to be a potential competitor for Blender, mainly due to the modular nature. It is also one of the few open-source modellers that offer proper Renderman integration. —Bart 123 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a simple Google search turns up almost no sources to demonstrate notability, besides similarly worded promotional/download sites. I found two books with brief descriptions but that's it.[[6]] [[7]] Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rough consensus means we compare arguments against policy rather than count snouts. Politician is well established and has community consensus and is clear that being el3cted mayor isnt inherantly notable. In the absence of sources to show gng compliance the delete arguments are the ones rooted in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bouchard[edit]

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

The only claim for notability seems to be that the subject is a major of a town with population of 36K. Only one reference is to media, and this is that he won the election. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Lewiston May be small compared to NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. but in Maine, it is one of the larger municipalities. The article can certainly be improved but shouldn’t be deleted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There is a category for Mayors of Lewiston. If you are going to delete the article because you consider Lewiston to be less than significant, then to be consistent you should delete the articles on the other mayors and the category as well.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I noticed this article while doing a new page patrolling; a couple of days ago I noticed an article about a major of a town in Pennsylvania and AfDed it as well. I am not doing any systematic search, I understand little in the US politics, and this is not at all my area of interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The wiki worthiness of one article is unrelated to the wiki worthiness of another. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence, but lacking familiarity with U.S. politics does impair your ability to judge the notability of this article. The size of a city is less important than its relative size in its state in determining the significance of the city in state and national politics.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am perfectly qualified to judge the notability of the article. Let us see what other users say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly qualified? For one thing, Bouchard's position is "mayor" not "major," a mistake you have now made twice. For another thing, you yourself admitted you "understand little in the US politics, and this is not at all my area of interest." At the very least, editors ought to restrict themselves to editing in topics they understand.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for turning the discussion into the direction of ad hominem attacks. I am sure the closing administrator will appreciate this and notice that your arguments are not policy-based.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is the mayor of Maine's second-largest city and therefore a significant political figure in the state. His predecessor has a page, and we should err on the side of inclusion. In doing so, we can provide people in Lewiston and across Maine with more information about their government and its leaders, rather than less.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you. I was just about to add that I found out Lewiston is Maine’s second largest CITY, not a town. Plus, his election has received coverage in the Seattle Times.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, thanks for pointing that out. Deleting this article would be akin to saying that the mayor of Buffalo, NY didn't deserve an article either.Kiernanmc (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep City mayors are notable by default. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect; WP:NOTABILITY says exactly the opposite, that they are not notably by default.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So YM, please clarify. Now that you know Lewiston is the second largest CITY in Maine, why should this article be deleted but other Lewiston mayors should not be deleted?Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel welcome to nominate other mayors as well, I will support if I come across these nominations. I do not have an obligation to nominate them myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t answer my question. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then your reading comprehension needs improvement. I asked about Shane Bouchard. But that is okay if you choose not to answer. You must be intellectually lazy and insecure if you don’t want to rebut the arguments put forth by others. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a personal attack. You asked me whether other articles on mayors of Lewiston should be deleted. I answered I would support deletion (I should have added provided they are not notable according to WP:GNG). I actually did it twice. If you conclusion is that I behave disruptively, WP:ANI is that far away.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like everyone but the OP, I believe the mayor of the second-largest city in Maine merits inclusion in Wikipedia.134.181.29.12 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — 134.181.29.12 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]
Comment. The keep side still failed to produce a policy-based argument.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously all users except you who have interacted with this AfD disagree. I hope the closing admin recognizes the overwhelming consensus for Keep.Kiernanmc (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is exacly my point. If the closing admin recognizes consensus and ignores the fact that there were no policy-based arguments except for those provided by me than we are going to be at DRV in no time. I clearly cited the policy which saya mayors are not notable unless they satisfy WP:GNG, nobody responded to that in a satisfactorily matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. 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". I can't find any significant coverage about Bouchard besides that he won the election. Indeed, what little coverage there is provides almost no biographical info, which would be necessary to build an article that's more than a stub. I think it's just WP:TOOSOON - he should be getting coverage once he actually does something. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NPOL item 3 (quoted by TimTempleton, above) is pretty clear that just being elected isn't good enough. If you want to get WP:NPOL changed, start a discussion there. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KidsClick Schedule Changes[edit]

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

PROD contested by creator. We are WP:NOTVGUIDE nor are we a collection of indiscriminate information. !dave 08:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-encyclopedic and a typical exemplifier of what is NOT Wikipedia. Lourdes 10:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Proposed deletion should not have been challenged. This is clearly NOT as Lourdes points out and specifically WP:NOTTVGUIDE: "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, ..." Spshu (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article Kids Click. It is not really possible to understand this article out of context. Vorbee (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vorbee: It's worth noting the lack of encyclopedic content to add, as noted above, and in policy, we aren't a TV guide, and we don't list when things are gonna be on. !dave 17:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not entirely sure if this actually meets the criteria for speedy deletion… but as with virtually everyone else in this discussion, I cannot see how we can have this article when we are not a program guide. While NOTTVGUIDE does say historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable, I don't really think this really qualifies as "historically significant". Take away the airtimes (which, even when not within the context of an actual schedule, have in other articles been deemed to violate NOTTVGUIDE) and you just have a list of programs aired on the block… which is already in the main KidsClick article and does not need its own page. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Oh hell no, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Definitely a reaction to KidsClick editors trying to keep that article from becoming an unfiltered WP:ADVERT. Also a WP:TROUT to Philblue7 (talk · contribs) who still hasn't gotten the point of why we keep this cruft out of articles (my warning to them from November 3rd, for instance). In addition it's all unsourced, and as I have re-iterated to the user several times, stations can air the programming whenever they want, so the times are not universal. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete totally non-encyclopedic and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete clear-cut case of WP:NOT. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Wendy Lucero-Schayes. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lucero[edit]

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

Redundant page with Wendy_Lucero-Schayes Keepssouth (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect then to Wendy Lucero-Schayes. Keepssouth, hello. There's no need to have a deletion discussion to redirect a page to the primary page. I would suggest that you can withdraw your nomination and redirect the page. Thanks, Lourdes 10:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United Reformed Church#United Reformed Church Youth. Content can be merged from article history if desired. ansh 666 09:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Project Wales[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Was redirected to church, but this was reverted as there had been no discussion about the subject's notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources now update and added - notably to UK Government website for currently active registered charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmondp (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lists like this do not contribute to notability. Requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. See WP:42. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the UK Government official web site not a reliable independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmondp (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the UK Government is a reliable source, but it only establishes that the charity exists, not that it is notable. Registered charities are probably not automatically notable. I have found two independent sources, albeit with limited relevant content.

Husselbee, Lesley; Ballard, Paul (5 July 2012). Free Churches and Society: The Nonconformist Contribution to Social Welfare 1800-2010. Continuum Publishing. p. 172. ISBN 978-1-4411-0911-8.
Jordan, Barbara (7 December 2016). "Where you can spot Camp Project Wales' Santa float in Runcorn". Runcorn and Widnes World.

Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge this and Fellowship of United Reformed Youth, another youth program of the same church, to United Reformed Church#United Reformed Church Youth. Third-party coverage, insofar as I can access it, appears too superficial to establish notability for either, but both can be briefly covered in the context of an article about the church as a whole. Failing that, delete. Sandstein 09:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to United Reformed Church#United Reformed Church Youth. I think Sandstein has this one right. The UK Government's official web site may be reliable, but in order to establish notability, we need coverage that is in-depth and comes from secondary sources, sources which are one step removed from an event. Given the scarcity of secondary sources here, I think merging is an acceptable compromise as it preserves the content that is verifiable while acknowledging that the subject may not have standalone notability. Mz7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Sandstein, I'm also unopposed to deletion if brief coverage at the church article is seen as inadvisable to other editors. Mz7 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The camp has not shown notability, besides a sentence in a book and a local interest article about a Santa float, has almost no web site, and is not even part of the church any more, so there's no proper place to merge anything to. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching failed to find any useful sources. I would normally support the idea of a merge/redirect per WP:ATD, but I don't see anything here that's worth merging. I'm not strictly opposed to a merge/redirect, I just don't see the point. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 09:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaledon[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and even the one and only reference states that the band is not notable. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 00:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found [8] and [9] as some coverage. This could possibly be salvaged, but most of the current content appears to be WP:OR translated from the itwiki article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Pool[edit]

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

I have found nothing to indicate this is a notable game beyond WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~: It's also known as 3D Ultra Cool Pool. That turns up more in searches [10]. However, being a 1999 game in a niche genre, odds are that in-depth coverage would be in print videogame and computers magazines of the era; most of the websites that would have written about this are long gone, Internet Archive wasn't very comprehensive back then (and especially, unfortunately respectful of robots.txt exclusions and similar metadata, which was really unfortunately overused in ignorance in that era (people thought it was protecting them from bad bots somehow, not yet realizing it was preventing people finding them via search engines and stuff). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Indeed as @SMcCandlish: states, the second title is more popular. There are reviews of the game in Computer Games Magazine & PC Gaming World, as well as a mention in a GameSpot article. The game can also be referenced against reviews in Electric Playground Magazine (04/16/04) where it was rated 7/10 and Computer Games Mag (12/08/99) where it recieved 2.5/5, acording to Gamerankings. Those magazine reviews should be enough to justify notoriety Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per review sources already found by Lee Vilenski, before even getting into paper ones. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 18:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 / G11 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamibuy[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be enough independent reliable sources that cover this company in-depth. Thus, it is not notable. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. Promo 'cruft on a nn website. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the speedy is removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I could no find no sources outside of press release-based and reports of venture funding. Even viewed in best light, lack sources perhaps because it is too new to be notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ogle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas Ogle

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

This nothing more than a non-notable conspiracy theory. —አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This 'biography' was created as a WP:COATRACK for the conspiracy theory. Note that a (much more conspiratorially-worded, so not G4able) version of this article was previously created at Thomas Ogle and deleted at AfD five years ago (with that title having been since recreated on an entirely different person/subject); none of the current "references" are WP:RSes, a check of GBooks, discounting xLibris and other WP:SPS, doesn't indicate that anything more has been published to further notability of either the man or his "invention". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. One blog source used as a ref is repeated on other sites and then referenced for this article. I could find no reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that an article on Tom Ogle's life is not completely lacking in reliable sources. [11][12][13][14][15] I would hate for this to get salted. It maybe possible someday to write this article. —አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's vaguely possible that "the 100MPG Carburator" could squeak past the hoax/conspiracy-theory notability bar. But the article would need to be on the invention, not the inventor, as this and the previous "try" both have coatracked it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Raj (footballer)[edit]

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

I just don't see any appearances that constitute notability; simply put, this play fails our notability criteria for football players. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a TOOSOON, but doesn't currently meet notability standards for association football. South Nashua (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:NFOOTY bar is ~~much~~ higher. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he has signed for Young Lions FC then they are professional and play in the S.League but until then it is WP:TOOSOON. Happy for article to come back if and when he gets game time. NZFC^(talk) 02:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So What! – A Tribute to The Anti-Nowhere League[edit]

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

Not a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of reliable source coverage from a Google search. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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