Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 January	4 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Flynn

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

~~No sources that are notable~~ KiwiMan (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notabel journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Index NZ has at least ten siginificant articles on the subject in national media. -- haminoon (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Nationally-known television presenter. I can see plenty of WP:RS hits in GNews for "Carly Flynn" New Zealand . Wikishovel (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG AND WP:SIGCOV. Should have been speedy kept along with other bad-faith nominations by blocked user. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above, seems a clear Keep and improve. The sources are there, but the article needs work - which is not a reason for deletion. Mattlore (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kronk Warner

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

Her page never states she's an actual full professor and her CV actually states "Adjunct and Associate Professor" and Associate Dean simply means she's a staff associates, not an important position. Nothing here at all for WP:PROF given the fact she's not in an otherwise convincing position to satisfy, and also not notable as a local judge, there's also no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. Sinppy because she's known in her specific field by her school staff is not automatically notability here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google scholar lists her publications under E. Kronk, not Warner. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep. GS [h-index]] of somewhere around 7 does not pass WP:Prof#C1. Can notability be found in WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment " The Washington Post source lists her as: "Elizabeth A. Kronk Warner, director of the Tribal Law & Government Center at the University of Kansas School of Law". If so, and based off that source, I'm leaning towards a Keep. JuliaCameron (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is weak, as Xxanthippe notes, but she is clearly a recognized expert on native American law (e.g. quoted in Washington Post), and has a plausible case for #C7 for her judicial work and #C8 for being editor-in-chief of the magazine of the Federal Bar Association (as well as serving on the bar's board of directors). Also, her edited volume has been well reviewed; that wouldn't be enough by itself but I think it adds to the overall case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I deprodded this because she's not only a full Professor, with lots of scholarship on her record, but she's also the associate dean/director of a well-regarded law school. I also agree with fellow legal eagle David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian As you may know, Professor is not the same thing as an actual Full Professor and her profiles still no cited "Full Professor", thus not so. What the CV states is "Professor, July 2015-". SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister are you still trying to argue this ridiculous point? Her CV, prominently linked from her home page (which is the first source in the article), says she's been a full professor since 2015. And, since you changed your comment after I made mine in an attempt to make yourself look less ridiculous: in that specific context, it can only mean full professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is an overall case that she is a notable legal scholar, even if she might not clearly pass one or another WP:PROF criteria. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is more as an ethnic legal activist spokesperson than as a scholar; but it's there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that as a scholar-activist she is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Washington Post source mentioned above, and numerous sources in the article that prove she meets WP:GNG. Brad v 19:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Maloney (politician)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:POLITICIAN. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. This was the first mayor of Pittston, Pennsylvania, a city of 8,000. The sources cited in the article are all from the City of Pittston website. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, unless there is an exemption for first mayors of small cities. MB 04:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A population of 8K is not large enough to hand mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for being mayors — but there's no evidence shown here of sufficient reliable source coverage about him, or sufficient substance about his mayoralty besides who happened to serve as acting mayor while he was on vacation in Ireland, to deem him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources only confirm that he was mayor; this does not automatically mean the subject is notable. 1292simon (talk)
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (mostly directed at the article creator) There is already a newspapers.com clipping for one of his obituaries, here. There are (of course) many other articles about him in Luzern County papers from during his life which can be found on newspapers.com and elsewhere. I would not support this article or its recreation if sources like these were used. There is an essay Wikipedia:Places of local interest and a failed guideline proposal Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) which basically advise that "Editors will generally not object to articles about places of local interest that are sufficiently long (not a stub), contain appropriate information (e.g. several of the ideas for information to include above), and are reasonably well-referenced." In the early period of Wikipedia, an article like this in its current state might be retained with the idea that such an article could be written. Now, articles are held to a higher standard.

As a note, this Thomas Maloney died in 1909, there was another Thomas Maloney (I don't know if there is any relation) who was a coal miner and labor leader in the 1930s in central Pennsylvania (nearby Wilkes Barre) who is certainly notable. Also, newspapers.com also finds sources about him under the name "James Maloney", suggesting that his middle name is James, but I don't find anything significant and contemporary using that name as a search term, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all three criteria at WP:NPOL. Brad v 20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Being unsourced isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly BEFORE was followed so wrapping it up as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Keane

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

This article should be deleted because it is unsourced meaning it fails WP:LISTVERIFY. Also, The core principle is not-noteable and would not be expected to be seen in an encyclopedia. -KAP03^Talk 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles are deleted for non-notability. There are not deleted because article (or list) is WP:IMPERFECT. WP:LISTVERIFY is not a notability guideline. This appears to be a bona fide member of Category:Lists of awards by musician. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reasonable WP:SPLIT from main article because of WP:SIZE issues; listing significant/notable awards and nominations for notable performers is a standard and expected part of our coverage. At most it would be trimmed and merged back there (none of this is currently at Keane) so per WP:ATD policy deletion is off the table. The nomination is completely without merit and confused as to relevant policy and guidelines. Outside of narrow BLP concerns we do not delete content "because it is unsourced"; we delete it because it cannot be sourced. And when we're dealing with notable awards and/or awards by notable organizations, it's simply not credible to claim that here. We have the awarding authority, the name of the award, the year, and the recipient. That arguably is a source, as awards and award announcements are effectively documents themselves; it certainly is a clear guide to a reader where the information can be found elsewhere. I suggest to the nominator, who has made a number of similarly invalid AFD nominations recently, that they ask an experienced editor for a second opinion before they nominate any more, else they find themselves topic-banned for repeatedly wasting the community's time. They should also read through WP:BEFORE thoroughly and spend more time reading deletion discussions to see what is considered a persuasive or relevant argument. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not currently citing references isn't reason to delete. This is a basic spin out. It's significant content that should be included somewhere but would take up too much space if included in the main band article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Rhododendrites. 1292simon (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comments above and WP:NEXIST. GauchoDude (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rogers K-Rock Centre. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston and District Sports Hall of Fame

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

No references to independent sources. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Insufficient coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the text into Rogers K-Rock Centre. The list fails WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Joseph2302 - while the list fails NLIST the information, sourced, is useful somewhere DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rogers K-Rock Centre, but without merging the actual list of inductees. While it's certainly valid to mention it somewhere, it isn't reliably sourced enough to stand alone as a separate article topic — the only "sources" present here at all are its own self-published webpage about itself, not media coverage — and further, most of the people listed in it are only locally notable and would not pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for sportspeople, so there's little value in maintaining a primary-sourced list of non-notable people regardless of what title we're keeping it at. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Rogers K-Rock Centre, just as Bearcat says. Right now, the target article makes no mention of housing a hall of fame, so it can't be just a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rogers K-Rock Centre. And I agree with Bearcat and others, the hall of fame should be mentioned there, but the whole long list of inductees does not belong there (or anywhere). Fyddlestix (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Football Awards

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

PROD contested by IP with their first edit (interesting...); no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These "awards" are pure popularity contests, decided by votes from fans. There is no notability in this type of award. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think winning one of these means much, but it passes WP:GNG per the sources on the article, and here are a few more [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. These are all national sources, The Mirror, The Independant, ESPN, and the Evening Standard. There is much more in not as well known sources and publications. I think this is easily a notable topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: - where is the significant coverage of the awards themselves (as required by WP:GNG), not just run-of-the-mill reporting about a winner? Giant Snowman 17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror cover the award extensively, they have about 20 articles around it. Here are some more, from them and from others, more centered on the actual award. [7] [8] [9] [10] (Number 10 is probably the best, but its not a particularly well known source). AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror organises the awards, of course they give it loads of coverage. Not many of what you are suggesting are reliable, and none are "significant". Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it can be compared to Globe Soccer Awards, there somewhat the same type and referenced the same way, while facebook is known very well for sports. User:Khalid sadeq Khalid sadeq 02:15, 28 December 2016 (KSA)
Delete - Fan vote, not notable. Kante4 (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have had publicity in a number of media sources (e.g. being shown live on BT Sport). The fact it is voted for by fans is irrelevant. Many notable awards in other professional sports are based on public votes (e.g. many players in each Major League Baseball All-Star Game are elected). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It meets the criteria for notability. The Mirror covers this story because it organize the awards, sure. Fans are voting, sure. However, neither of those two points deny its notability.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal United Nations Conference

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

Non-notable event created by a member (secretary general) with no claim of notability or significance. Searched for sources but the only results were self-published articles or brief mentions in passing. May become notable in the future but currently cannot be appropriately sourced. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for the Montreal United Nations Conference has been updated to include citations from external sources as well as encyclopedic information that is neutral and articulates what the conference is about. More details about the conference can be added to the Wikipedia page, however please note that external references may not exist for such information. The purpose of the present Wikipedia page is to detail what the conference is about and what it organizes. The creator of the Wikipedia page is the current Secretary-General of the conference and has participated at the event for the last five years, therefore placing them in the best position to describe the conference. Several similar Wikipedia pages exist for such conferences, including Harvard World Model United Nations of which the Montreal United Nations Conference is a sponsor of in 2017. Thank you. JonathanSasson (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject lacks the signficant coverage in reliable independent sources required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't have any better results in Google searches. Google Books was confounded with an (older?) conference of the same name. None of the sources in the article were helpful, other than to show that the name of the topic doesn't match the sources (Montreal MUN vs. DCMUN). Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transformers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-Con

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Transformers. Oh my freaking god. Even if this fringe toy was remotely able to meet the GNG, which it isn't, this article is about twenty times too long. I commend the author to put this on his own fansite. Ravenswing 10:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if anyone cares, merge it somewhere. This doesn't warrant its own article. I think Ravenswing's assessment is perfect, so I'm going to repeat it: "Oh my freaking god. Even if this fringe toy was remotely able to meet the GNG, which it isn't, this article is about twenty times too long." Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no need to redirect or merge. Subject is trivial. The only reason to redirect would be to prevent recreation, and that can be handled via CSD G4 and salting if it occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line). Redirect can be retargeted if anyone has a better idea. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Changers

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. There is only one non-primary source being used, and it is being used only to get the information on two of the character's voice actors, and does nothing to establish any sort of notability or support any of the copious amounts of cruft present in the article. I was considering suggesting a redirect to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series) characters instead, but as it seems that this group appeared in more than one series, the general Autobot list seems like it would be the better place for the redirect. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this topic warrants its own article. Deleting, merging or redirecting are plausible options. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line) (since it's just a toy line and not from the TV series). I'm seeing a lot of sales websites, a ton of blogs, and nothing really showing that this sub-line of toys was ever more than just a way to make a buck. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Neil (actor)

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

Fails all criteria at WP:NACTOR:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions? No.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following? No.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? No.

If this qualifies as notable, then any actor/actress who's ever had a part is notable. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Jason Quinn (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOT YET. The subject has very minimal notability and should not have its own article space just yet. As an actor, the subject needs to be more established to receive its own article. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article's history also shows this article was also created by the subject's father using a single-purpose account with an obvious promotional motive. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Not all movie/TV actors are notable, as we'll noted before. We have tended to delete articles about living children or young adult actors who are even marginally notable, and this is not a close case. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. GauchoDude (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge Museums

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

All of the relevant content on this page is already in a category which provides all of the relevant information on this page. Layla (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the museums listed already have articles and are in fact in Category:Museums of the University of Cambridge, which demonstrates that the list-article is valid. Please see wp:CLT which explains how categories, list-articles, and navigation templates are complementary. Unlike categories, list-articles can include higher level discussion about the group, and can include photos and references. It would be good perhaps to develop the list, perhaps to make the entries into a table with short descriptive information about each one, but it is fine as is. I'm impressed how many separate libraries there are. I assume, by the way, that this was split out of a University of Cambridge general article to allow for them all to be listed and to allow for details. --do ncr am 08:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Yeah, this could just be reformatted into a list. I was a little to trigger happy with nominating this one. Layla (̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm snow closing this a day early, per my rationale below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man comic book issue chronology

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

This is original research and fancruft, both of which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Spidey104 21:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft Spiderone 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may snow close this for three reasons - the first is that it's fancruft, the second is that there is already an overview of Spider-Man's character history in the article - anything that isn't mentioned there is going to be considered too in-depth for a place like Wikipedia (as we give general overviews as opposed to in-detail descriptions), and finally the other issue is that this article would cover decades of material. This means that the list would be so lengthy that it would take long periods of time to load up, making it bulky and unwieldy. I don't see this closing any other way, as some of this chronology would be up to the reader's own interpretation and would just be too in-depth for what Wikipedia does. It's the type of thing you put on a fan wiki, not Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Rashdi

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

Fails WP:Artist or WP:Creative. Single film as actor and second assistant director. Very minor presence. Tenuous notability. I don't doubt he will be back. Pakistani film industry is resurgent. Fails WP:BIO. Too early. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not have the required notability for its own article space. None of the subject's social media accounts are verified - and let me tell you how verified accounts matter for entertainers (they really do, I know the process.) Additionally, the subject is not ready for its own article space and needs to be more established. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing since what's listed is his own announcements and websites hence not substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, notability is now inherited from this father. Secondly, assistant directors are very common and sort of run of the mill. Lastly, he has not acted in any major films and/or in any starring roles; one part does not make an actor notable unless it's extraordinary and has won major awards. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, above rationale, and overarching WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman National Debate Institute

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

This article meets the criteria for WP:ADMASK - it is totally promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom on ADMASK. Article is not written in an encyclopedic tone - it is highly promotional. Beyond that, it is totally unreferenced and I could find no independent RS, just a few brief list-type mentions. Therefore, there is also no notability. MB 05:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to notability is that it is "well known" and is "recognized" by the National Forensics League; in fact, it is listed as an advertiser/vendor[11]. Coverage of any kind is next to nonexistent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, above rationale, and overarching WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request. Hut 8.5 22:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Gebler

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

The Gebler Tooth company article was recently deleted following an AfD discussion. This article about one of the founders is merely another article about the company in all but name. Gebler is mentioned briefly in relation to his company and well known family, but lacks any significant, indepth coverage about himself. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his famous mother. Deb (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the author of the article has an undeclared COI. See [12] Deb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb I am the author of this article. I have known the subject most of my life as I was at school and university with him and his family was acquainted with mine. I think that makes me particularly well suited to write about him. Or are you one of those people who don't believe in expertise? I notice that SionK, who, like you, tries to delete all my contributions to Wikipedia, is Welsh, like you. SionK has written many Wikipedia pages on Welsh subjects (many lacking citations to back up her assertions). Is this not a flagrant COI, according to your criteria? Or do you think it's possible she has a special insight and interest precisely because she's Welsh? Perhaps you and SionK are the same person - you certainly behave the same.

Why are you so destructive, so mean-spirited, so envious of other peole's achievements, and so chippy? Shame on you. 'Redirect to his famous mother'? please. How do you sleep at night? I hope one day you turn into a better person. BTW I also have quite a bit of welsh heritage, but I'm frankly ashamed to be associated with people like you. Get some humanity. You'll be happier for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallura (talk • contribs) 14:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you completely incapable of understanding the Wikipedia guidelines, which have been spelled out to you time and time again? You've been given far too much leeway up to now in creating articles about almost every member of your family and many of your friends and now you are actually trying to create an article about someone you currently work for, without ever giving a thought to the conflict of interest. I can't believe how brazen you are. One more word of abuse from you, on this page or anywhere else, and I'll block you. Deb (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are all WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews or passing mentions in relation to his mother, the LABC award is for a project team of four companies rather than Gebler individually. --McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your advice and deleted my article. I no longer 'work for' Wikipedia!! Please do delete all the other articles I've written for you too. The moral of the story is: never work for anyone for free!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallura (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion is balanced, so this close will perhaps allow opportunity to find more sources.. Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Forbes

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

Not notable - only reference is IAAF profile and never progressed past first round of any tournament. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - give him his dues, he participated in a IAAF World Championships (even though he cam last in his heat, this is still the highest level of athletic contest) therefore passes WP:NATHLETE. Sionk (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NATHLETE: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" I'm not seeing any sources other than one track heat result. ManGoldin (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more specific, he meets criteria 1 of WP:NTRACK. WP:NTRACK is alternative sport specific notability criteria (as mentioned in your quote) for athletes. Sionk (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not there yet. It needs more reliable sources talking in-depth about the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly meets the first criterion at WP:NTRACK. Scorpion's argument immediately above seems to be in the line of WP:RUBBISH - it definitely needs developing but that doesn't take away the fact that it meets the relevant notability rule. Amisom (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While Forbes definitely meets NTRACK, NTRACK is not the ultimate answer to life, notability and everything; WP:GNG is. Looking at Forbes's athletic credentials (competed in the World Championships, which is an NTRACK pass; twice competed in the Commonwealth Games; set several national records; seems to have done some coaching after his career) it's reasonable to expect coverage; but a reasonable expectation that's right 98-99% of the time is wrong 1-2% of the time. Sources available online only show passing mentions and routine coverage, nothing that would contribute even slightly towards meeting GNG; considering that Forbes comes from an English-speaking country and competed in the Internet era, that is not a good sign and suggests he may be in the 1%.

It's also entirely possible that during his active career he received enough coverage in local sources to meet GNG comfortably, and that those sources are simply not available online; not being familiar with Turks and Caicos journalism, I cannot guess whether that's likely or unlikely. At his level (he didn't qualify for the World Championships by meeting the normal international entry standards; he got in because Turks and Caicos didn't have anybody else) expecting coverage beyond such a local level is a stretch; it does happen for athletes who're bad enough or strange enough to be a curiosity (think Eric the Eel), but Forbes wasn't remotely bad enough for that.

Question and answer 4 of the NSPORT FAQ explain the critical point for cases like this, where an athlete meets the sport-specific guideline but has not been shown to meet GNG:

Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?

A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given.

I have no idea how much leeway should we give a Turks and Caicos athlete from the early 2000s; maybe @John Carter or @Caballero1967, as members of the Turks and Caicos workgroup, can offer insights. Sideways713 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideways713: But WP:N (the parent page of WP:GNG) says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Since WP:ATHLETE is so listed, and we both agree that this person meets that guideline, he accordingly is sufficiently notable for an article on Wikipedia. Amisom (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: It's unfortunately very easy to misunderstand the relationship between WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, which is not necessarily exactly the same as that between GNG and other subject-specific notability guidelines. All articles about sportspeople need to meet the general notability guideline; meeting WP:NSPORT doesn't give a free pass to anyone who doesn't meet the GNG.
The idea behind WP:NSPORT is that if an athlete meets its criteria, they are very likely to also meet WP:GNG, even if the article has no sources to demonstrate that; it means we can usually presume the sources are out there somewhere, waiting to be found. But sometimes (rarely if the sport-specific guidelines are good; more often if they're too lenient) that presumption is wrong; and if there is a clear consensus that this is one of those cases - that the athlete doesn't meet GNG and that sufficient sources can never be found - then the article should be deleted.

Because the presumption that sources can be found is quite strong, this doesn't happen very often, but it does happen; User:Sir Sputnik/AfD Precedent#NSPORT is not god lists a couple dozen football-related AfD discussions from the last few years where players who clearly met WP:NFOOTY were deleted because there was a consensus that they didn't meet WP:GNG.

See Q1/A1 and Q2/A2 of the WP:NSPORT FAQ. Sideways713 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NTRACK. GauchoDude (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria #1 of WP:NTRACK: "Has competed in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships". Brad v 19:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Innovation Hub for Apparel, Textiles and Wearable Tech

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

This article is not notable and reads as promotion for the company and should be speedily deleted. If anything, it should be listed under the Wiki article for the grant, but there is no article for that as it itself is not notable. Startups can't be notable just because they were written about in association with a grant. Nothing has been written (or sourced) about this company since its near beginning in 2014. This page was found as it was linked from the founders name in a recently created Wiki article, which indicates promotion. ManGoldin (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — ManGoldin (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of GeraldoAbbson (talk · contribs). [reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. It is reasonably well sourced from top notch sources (Inc., Architectural Digest, Industry Week, WWD), and I feel neutrally written. For the record I have no connection to the company, founder, funding organization, etc. and maintain a strict COI separation as stated on my userpage for quite a while now. - Brianhe (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: Most, if not all sources that are listed are not aimed at this company, rather they are aimed at the advent of manufacturing in that area of NYC. If anything, this page should be deleted and then this company should be listed under the what companies received the grant under a page describing the manufacturing. Just because an article is mentioned in sources, does not necessarily mean its notable. This company has done nothing notable other than receive a small grant, other recipients of the grant do not have Wikipedia articles. Startups have a whole ecosystem of "press" that they receive at their inception, that indicates potential, but not notability. I believe you in that you have no COI, but am curious as to why this company merits a Wikipedia article. If anything, this is a WP:TOOSOON. ManGoldin (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — ManGoldin (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of GeraldoAbbson (talk · contribs). [reply]

Delete. The "top notch sources" referred to above consist of interviews and recycled press releases, not independent coverage, and I can find nothing better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err ... no, did you read them? The Inc. article alone is over 2,500 words. Not a recycled press release. Also the initial del !vote saying "Nothing has been written...since 2014" is clearly incorrect as there are at least three sources from 2016 which were easily found in a WP:BEFORE scan of recent news. These are some very puzzling AfD comments. - Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, just added a 1,300 word New York Times article Manufacture New York Provides Production Facilities to Independent Designers found thru the helpful WP:BEFORE tools at the top of this page. Apparently they thought it was important before the doors even opened. Is this also a recycled press release? - Brianhe (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: I think the main idea is that the page is WP:TOOSOON, as the article itself lacks a lot of depth as to why it's notable. The sources that back it don't shed a lot of light onto why its individually notable from the development of manufacturing in the area. ManGoldin (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — ManGoldin (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of GeraldoAbbson (talk · contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@JuliaCameron: I'm trying my best to be civil and will wait a bit for more conversation to develop here before replying again. But as I said, there are some very puzzling comments being made here, including yours: "being mentioned in articles...does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable". This flabbergasts me. If this is the case, then what is notability? WP:GNG depends on being written about, no more, no less. I think I've beaten WP:SUSTAINED by showing coverage in 2013, 2014 and 2016. The sources are relatively unimpeachable; we generally take NYT coverage on a topic to indicate notability, as the national newspaper of record. The other sources are good but "gravy" at this point IMHO. The depth likewise is good. What's left? - Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NYT and Inc. articles provide sufficient coverage to address WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty easily, it is a one-paragraph stub that could actually use a little expansion (NYT is mentioned in 'further reading' but not incorporated into the body-prose), but satisfies WP:GNG pretty easily (Architectural Digest is the 3rd-best-cite and Women's Wear Daily has two pieces plus various trade-rags on top of the more general-news-outlets). Quick search turns up Harper's Bazaar piece from January 2015,[13] and some hits at City of New York municipal government and at the Small Business Administration hearings,[smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2-22-2016_bland_testimony.pdf] too, which even when 'WP:INVOLVED' in partially funding the project tend to be treated as inherently-RS. (This incubator is part of a larger quasi-privatized textile-industry-reboot, see MIT and NYT#2.[14][15]) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NYT is a clear reliable source, backed up by INC. I don't know if the title should be changed to be Manufacture New York - but that is an entirely different topic for the talk page. In any case, certainly a notable article. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United Academy

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

Resubmitting this article for deletion discussion. My first suggestion that this league was a youth league was proven wrong, fair enough, it's an academy league. But I honestly do not believe that a 4th tier, amateur-level US soccer/football academy league meets WP:GNG standards on its own. Here are my arguments against this:

1) Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, all sports teams must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements, so my following points will discuss those aspects.
2) Notability is not inherent. Arguments against this deletion often stated that "the consensus was that academy teams/leagues are notable." Per policy: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists" Practically all sources given for this academy team are local in nature, not regional nor national.
3) Notability is not inherited. There is not an argument that this academy team is indeed affiliated with its respective notable parent club D.C. United, and it may have indeed produced notable players, but that does not, by definition, make the academy club itself notable.
4) Fails depth of coverage. Multiple, independent sources have not been cited to establish notability of this academy league. Again, sources are local to the team.
5) Fails local unit notability. Direct quote from this rule: "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area."

Now, I can agree with the opinion and would even support a Merge of this content to its respective parent club page. But on its own, this page fails. SanAnMan (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly willing to believe that this academy might not be notable, but the fact that the nominator refers to it repeatedly as a league, when it is clearly not a league, doesn't inspire confidence in the nomination statement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "*1) Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, all sports teams must meet (my emphasis) Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements, so my following points will discuss those aspects.", no they don't, have a look at sentence 2, paragraph 2 of the lead of WP:NSPORT - "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, .." Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple, WP:NSPORT specifically states that it does not apply to sports teams, so your excerpt from the lead is inaccurate. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

me bad, trout please

Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying others who participated in the previous AfD for this article: Quidster4040, Smartyllama, Jo-Jo Eumerus, ArchieOof. I'm assuming the nominator already notified them, but just to be on the safe side. CUA 27 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I did a quick search and sound several reliable sources, and I've added just a few (Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Washington Post, Orlando Sentinel, Soccer America) of the several that I found. This article pretty clearly satisfies WP:GNG. CUA 27 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm also pasting a relevant post from the previous AfD, which the nominator failed to mention or address: "I see a lot of reliable secondary sources covering this organization, within a general Google search, a Google News search, and even a Books search. I feel that means it easily passes WP:GNG ArchieOof.)" CUA 27 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArchieOof, the sources you mention simply either mention the existence of the club, or, in two of your cites added, the fact that a particular person was once a member. Just because the club exists does not make it notable, see WP:ENN. And again, the fact that it has produced notable players does not make the group notable. None of the cites provided nor the searches given meet the significant coverage requirement of GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you responding to? And for the ESPN, Washington Post, and Soccer America articles, the DC United Academy is the principal subject of the article. I don't know how you missed that. The article now has 14 references, 11 of which are from independent reliable sources; but the cites currently in the article only scratch the surface, as a google search for "DC United Academy" shows over 15,000 results. CUA 27 (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CUA 27, again, almost all the cites you have added and the others mentioned in the search results are about players who have been affiliated with the league. And as proven earlier, these articles basically just mention the club, not anything about its notability, and the notability of the players is not inherited to the club as per WP:INHERITORG. Your argument continues to prove my points. So far, out of all the cites you have listed/added, only three so far are about the club itself. And adding cites from the club's website does not prove notability either. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multiple sources with significant coverage, but the signficant coverage aspect states that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Here, we have an article with more than 10 independent reliable sources; with several of these sources the DC United Academy is the main topic of the source. This more than satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG.

Also, you may want to make sure you have a good grasp of the facts here. The article we are talking about relates to an academy that develops players, not a league as you have again referred to it. And, contrary to your claim, I have not added any cites from the club's website. CUA 27 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree on this subject. Your quote about the significant coverage aspect is correct, but the same area also states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". The cites and articles you have added and/or mentioned, for the most part, do not address the academy as a direct, detailed source and only mention the academy in passing. As for my usage of the words "academy", "league", and/or "team", it seems you are getting caught up in the semantics of the terms. I appreciate your passion and defense of the topic even though we see the GNG on this subject from differing viewpoints. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in PDL, top level amateur league in US/Canada - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giant, that still doesn't explain how it meets GNG, can you elaborate please? - SanAnMan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an assumption that clubs or players playing at a certain level meet GNG - hence why comment it needs improving. Giant Snowman 09:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giant I'm going to avoid the obvious "assume" joke here, but can you actually cite this in policy? As per the comment below, some people do not consider PDL to be a upper-level league. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PDL is not a top-level league anywhere on the planet, but the club meets GNG based on the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we've always considered USPDL teams notable. Not sure why this would be any different. Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz, because the academy does not actually have a team in USPDL (the article info on this is incorrect). Also, the article is about the entire academy, which is now mostly amateur-level. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They used to have a team in the USPDL, see 2015_PDL_season. We don't delete articles for former USPDL teams. Appears to meet WP:GNG too. Nfitz (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The former PDL team has its own article, D.C. United U-23. This article is now strictly about the academy which is amateur-level only. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is the nomination full of discussion about the league then?!? Honestly .... though given the articles appears to meet WP:GNG it's moot ... Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Brad v 20:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pim Haselager

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, as tagged since July 2008. The first AfD failed to have consensus, so here is a 2nd AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. With just one book, no major positions or achievements in the article, I do not see how this person would be notable right now. Maybe some day. Enlighten me, source the article, and I will reconsider. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - remarkably little output in over 20 years' work, would not be granted tenure in a North American university. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Please DGG, can you enlighten us? Bearian (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research output and citation record [16] are quite reasonable for this stage of career. It is not clear if the subject holds a tenured position or not, but that is irrelevant to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- the article survived the first AfD, but is not better for it. Let's put the issue to rest and delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people who participated in the previous discussion: @Boleyn: @K.e.coffman: @Xxanthippe: @SwisterTwister: @Jergling: @David Eppstein: @DGG: @No longer a penguin: @Yamamoto Ichiro:. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons as first AfD (borderline citation record, nothing else). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP. It has been tagged as not meeting the notability guidelines for academics since 2008. Brad v 17:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h-index of 19 [17] is distinctly high by citation standards of pure philosophy (but maybe not so high for neuro-philosophy, which is bio-med, if that is the field). Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- @Xxanthippe: I'd agree that it's high for philosophy, but most of his publications are in cognitive science journals. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the citations above themselves only have a high of 232, not nearly enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, unsourced WP:BLP, and overarching WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gum

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

Absolutely nothing here since the career itself is entirely trivial and unconvincing and our non-negotiable policies are clear about this. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though charitably one might say this as WP:TOOSOON because he has secured potentially high profile parts in a couple of 2017 films. However, it's best to wait to see if they fly or bomb before Gum hangs his notability to their coat tails. His other roles seem to be fairly small, suggesting he is just a jobbing actor. Sionk (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press releases are not reliable sources. There aren't any reliable sources that show the subject is worthy of its own article space. In addition, the article is only one sentence long. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, above rationale, and overarching WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vmars22 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mercy (upcoming film)

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG because it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. This can be found by first looking at the sources that this article references. These sources ^[1] and ^[2] are not reliable because they are sources that are not independent of the subject. Next, these sources ^[3] and ^[4] were published by the same author meaning their only one source for WP:N. Lastly, there is this source ^[5] meaning there are two sources for this article. There are not very more reliable sources to add to this article so it should be deleted. KAP03^Talk 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does not get deleted it should at least be renamed to Mercy (2017 film) because the current title is MOS:RELTIME. KAP03^Talk 19:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Page, Ellen (September 19, 2016). "First day. First shot. Feeling grateful. #mercy @katemara @amyztemies #killerfilms ❤️📽". Instagram.com. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
^ Page, Ellen (October 21, 2016). "Gonna miss this rockstar of a human ❤️❤️ @whodey14 #mercy #lastday". Instagram.com. Retrieved October 24, 2016.
^ McNary, Dave (August 18, 2016). "Tali Shalom Ezer Directing Ellen Page and Kate Mara in Romantic Drama 'Mercy'". Variety. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
^ McNary, Dave (September 20, 2016). "Brian Geraghty Joins Ellen Page-Kate Mara Romance 'Mercy'". Variety. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
^ Erbland, Kate (August 19, 2016). "Ellen Page and Kate Mara To Star in Forbidden Romantic Drama 'Mercy'". Indiewire.com. Retrieved September 19, 2016.

Keep. The film has notable actors in it, if it is nominated for deletion due to the social media sourcing, I will replace with better citations. Vmars22 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand and find additional references. Vmars22 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is obviously notable. However, in the title, the words "upcoming" should be removed. Also, the Instagram posts should be removed. Other than that, this is a keep as the reliable sources are there. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by coverage in reliable sources, as well, as filming have taken place, rather than expecting to take place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think two different articles on the film filed by Variety film reporter Dave McNary a month apart would be considered as one article. These are not reprints or mirrors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: In WP:GNG it states that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." This clearly shows that two articles on the film by "Variety" film reporter Dave McNary should be considered one article as they were published by the same author. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still disagree. Common sense applies, or one should use common sense in applying thee rules. But in this case, the second Variety piece is a short follow up anyway. However, if McNary writes a second major article on the release of the film in Variety, there's no way I'm gonna accept that that's all one source. But that's a hypothetical. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this coverage is adequate to meet WP:GNG. Daß Wölf 18:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Yes, I think the sources on the article now and those I see via Gnews shows enough coverage to meet WP:NFF. (If deleted, which I doubt will happen, we should see about moving to user or draft space until such time as the film launches). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yangmaso Shaiza

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

This person appears to fail WP:NBIO, as the sources in the article are unreliable and searching fails to find reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN, as can be confirmed by clicking on the words "books" or "news" in the search links above, which are there to be looked at rather than being merely decorative. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep The subject barely passes as a notable politician. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A chief minister of a state is far from a borderline pass of WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - chief minister of Manipur which seems to give inherent notability; he is also featured in a lot of books as mentioned by the IP editor Spiderone 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Chief Minister of a state is definitely notable per WP:POLITICIAN. The position is equivalent to the Governor of a U.S. state. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:POLITICIAN as shown above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud al-Rashid

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

An former executive officer with one of a myriad UK charities and a current one with another. Fails WP:BIO - no assertion of significance or notability. Likely a promo. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Telegraph article does not mention the subject at all. The sources that are there does not talk about the subject in-depth either. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all barristers/lawyers are notable. This attorney has not held high enough leadership positions in the bar or charities to merit inclusion. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, above rationale, and overarching WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A10 Nthep (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma omicron epsilon

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

Duplicate page Soebutterfly (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Sigma omicron epsilon[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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of American Baby Boomers

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

The only list that isn't a redlink is up for deletion, as it should be. Some humongous portion of the US population was born in a somewhat arbitrarily-delimited time period. Making long lists of people who happen to fall into this period is a bad idea, so making lists of those lists is a bad idea as well. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary list that's doesn't seem encyclopedic. Grammarphile (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list would have to include hundreds of thousands of people to be comprehensive, which would clearly be a bit insane. It's just an arbitrary list with no value. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no complete list of Baby boomers out there, and the term get's thrown around in culture so often it would be useful to have a list. There are a few people listed already on the Baby boomer article, so I though I'd expand it further. Also we have Lists of African Americans, Lists of Jews which are larger still and also hard to define.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're the creator of the article, naturally you'd like it to be kept. I have one question: Do you plan on adding every single person born within a set time period to this list? If not, the article will have no encyclopaedic value. If yes, it'll still have no value - and saying "there are other lists" doesn't make a difference. Problems with other articles don't excuse problems with this one. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the issue of exactly who is a baby boomer is not well-defined at the trailing edge; the demographers and the social scientists see different (and in the case of the latter varied) cut-off bands. That difference is an issue because while African-Americans and Jews have social consequences of being minorities with their own characteristic subcultures, there isn't such commonality over boomers, however you delineate them. As someone born in 1960 I do not see myself as a boomer, nor my younger siblings, and my life experience doesn't fit with the stereotypes of boomer life, in no small part because I was too young to have typical boomer experiences. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grammarphile and the nom. Also this list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 as it is a list of loosely related people. KAP03^Talk 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason "there's no complete list of baby boomers out there" is because there doesn't need to be — the term encompasses every single person born between 1946 and 1964, with some fuzziness around the back end. Firstly, that means a person can be easily identified as "baby boomer" or "not baby boomer" just by looking at the birthdate in their article. Secondly, it means that the lists would have to include a huge proportion of all the people in the United States who have articles at all — making the lists effectively unmaintainable because one would have no time left to do anything at all if one constantly had to scan Wikipedia for missing entries. Thirdly, the lack of other lists of this topic means that the act of compiling one here constitutes original research. There's just no encyclopedic value to listing people by their demographic generation — that's what the Category:1946 births through Category:1964 births categories are for. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "As someone born in 1960 I do not see myself as a boomer", that is because you are not Mangoe, you are a Cusper. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas! I am a man without a demographic! Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have "lists of" navigational pages when we have more than one "list of" to point to. No objection to recreation if that time comes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Topic far too vague to be considered for a stand alone list. Ajf773 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update This article has been made completely pointless as the one bluelinked article List of American writers of the Baby boomer generation (AfD) has been deleted. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of unseen Coronation Street Characters

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's unencyclopaedic FAN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Very hard to verify any of the information in the article, and I suspect it was created just to add links to infoboxes. JuneGloom07 Talk 14:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unreferenced and most likely unverifiable by any reliable sources. anemone projectors 14:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious case, given how obscure this topic is. The fact that this article exists (and everyone is listed as not being portrayed by anyone) Is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla, the remover (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of WP:LISTN Spiderone 11:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we had some sources on the phenomenon of unseen characters in Coronation Street, maybe. No sources are cited, and I can't see them existing. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R.Janindu Mahesh

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

Non-notable YouTube singer, no independent reliable sources upon search. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt! This article was previously speedy deleted as being non-notable. The author of the article was also the subject of the article, an obvious conflict of interest case. I strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet account in order to get around his original account being blocked. Dan arndt (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Whoops! I had a feeling it had been salted but for some reason when I checked the logs (I left a space in the front) I didn't find it! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Chrissymad: I was going to log a sockpuppet investigation but as the original article had been deleted didn't see the need. The same individual has also created Talk:Janindu Mahesh. Dan arndt (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logging it already for the sake of tracking. :) @Dan arndt:

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G12 as a copyvio RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Asgar Research Center (KARC)

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

Fails to meet WP:COMPANY; only sources are WP:PRIMARY and there are copyright violations from http://karcd.org/ and http://karcd.org/inviting-message/. Was nom'd for speedy under WP:A7 and WP:G12 but a new and possibly involved editor/sockpuppet removed the speedy tag. Drm310 (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional and copyright violation. Also the notability thing. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per notability issues. United States Man (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Pennell

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Siblings' fame does not confer notability. No evidence of Olympic competition or sufficiently notable awards although this text is so hard to follow that I may have missed something. Quis separabit? 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't attempt to demonstrate how WP:BIO is met. Looking online, there's nothing of substance. changed to keep Schwede 66 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SPORTCRIT – she has competed at the highest level, i.e. world championships; and is subject of plenty of independent reports, but mostly under her earlier married name of Stella Lenihan. Not surprising there's no evidence of Olympic competition as karate has not been included in any Olympic Games to date. Paora (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Slight~~ Keep - As per paora. J 947 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was originally leaning delete because the international sports argument didn't convince me as much since she didn't seem to have won a championship at that level, but she seems to have won regional and national level championships, which is similar to criteria 2/4 of WP:NBOXING (different, but looking at the existing sports level criteria for precedents.) The international combined with the national are enough for a keep !vote from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, plenty of sources out there to develop this article, here are some - Upper Hutt, 2004 sportsperson of the year, bio of Pennell, confirms in world cup, article discussing women in coaching with a quote from Pennell. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability criteria are best found under WP:MANOTE and participation in an event is not enough. She did not medal at the major events and a passing mention as a participant (in the events website) does not confer notability and neither does a quote in an article or a website bio.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my vote, as in my opinion, the collection of media coverage presented by the Upper Hutt City Library found by Coolabahapple swings the balance towards meeting GNG. Schwede 66 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I guess? In the second round, many new sources have been cited, and no new "delete" opinions have appeared. Sandstein 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robbert Hartog

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

Probably inadequate basis for notability. Most of the recipients of this award (Bronze Wolf Award) were head of a nation Scouting organization, or members of the World Committee. He was neither, and nothing else is listed. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we see some other evidence of notability. An award given by an organization to one of its own leaders, no matter what organization, is very thin grounds for an entire encyclopedic bio. - Brianhe (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - I do not see how being the recipient of this particular award is an adequate basis to establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. -- HighKing 14:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I...can't find much of anything. He was Canadian, so maybe there's something in French that I'm missing, but the official list of recipients doesn't even include a citation for why it was awarded, or...any indication why this person was considered exceptional to begin with, beyond being a high ranking bureaucrat for the scouts, which doesn't seem to be in any way qualifying on its own for an article. Even that bit of detail is, at this point, completely unsourced.

The article appears to be a stub, not because it hasn't yet been written, but because there appears to be literally nothing else available to write about. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just got back from overseas, found a Georgian College Robbert Hartog Midland Campus, so in fact there is a thread I will follow the next few days. Nobody who got this award got it out of thin air, as Bduke and Btphelps have repeatedly and well argued over several of these afds. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the announcement Georgian College names Midland campus after philanthropist Robbert Hartog (August 25, 2008). Here's an announcement that a Biography of Robbert Hartog, First Chair of CCI's Board, Going to Print although I can't find any other mention of it. -- HighKing 15:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as articulated on related afds. Some recipients may not make news due to the nature of their community-based, voluntary work, but as one of a few hundred among tens of million world wide scouting members, are definitely noteworthy. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be a good time to remind ourselves that supplementary notability guidelines are created as an indication of what types of people are likely to meet GNG. They are not separate standards. If someone wants to make the argument that the award is qualifying, that needs to be shown by demonstrating that the vast majority of recipients are going to be well enough written about that they would pass GNG regardless.

However, the circular argument of:

The award bestows notability.
Person X received the award.
Ergo person X is notable.

Is completely meaningless to the debate, and is not a policy based reason for keeping or deleting an article. Flatly put, if an individual does not make news due to the nature of their community-based, voluntary work, then they are not notable. There's lots of great teachers, social workers, scout leaders, etc. that do great community work, but there is no moral excellence standard for notability on Wikipedia, in the same way there is no moral turpitude standard for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your statement above "there appears to be literally nothing else available to write about", you clearly didn't look. I looked for only 15 minutes since my return from overseas and found:

- Corporate Catalyst: A Chronicle of the (Mis)Management of Canadian Business ...By Tony Griffiths p 186 board of Directors of Develcon
- Directory of Directors Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company, 1980 p 644
- Bulletin of Ontario Securities Commission 1974 p 178
- The Blue Book of Canadian Business Canadian Newspaper Services International Limited (COR) Canadian Newspaper Services International., 2008 p H-678
- Canadian Business Magazine, Volume 49 CB Media, 1976 - Canada p. 30 Robbert Hartog, President and Chief Executive of Waltec Enterprises Ltd
- Inland Seas, Volume 22, Issue 4 Great Lakes Historical Society., 1966 - Great Lakes (North America) p. 338 Robbert Hartog, Midland, Ontario
- Standard Directory of Worldwide Marketing National Register Publishing Co. Staff National Register Publishing Company, Macmillan Directory Division, 1990
- ^[1] multiple patents

and the frosting on the cake

- House of Commons Debates, Official Report (Hansard), Volume 142, Issues 38-47 E. Cloutier, Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 2008 p 2524 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS [English] ROBBERT HARTOG Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): "Mr. Speaker, a week ago Sunday, my riding lost one of its most celebrated community leaders and builders." Born in the Netherlands and schooled as an economist, Hartog helped to rebuild the economy of the Netherlands after World War II...^[2]
- Teahen, Shannon. Robbert Hartog: A Lifetime of Changing Lives. c, 2009.

So we now have that he was an economist, a philanthropist, a business leader and a bit of an inventor, where he lived and the year he died, enough to have a book written on him and a eulogy in the Canadian House of Commons. I don't even have access to an English library here in Japan. Where again did you pretend to look, timothyjosephwood? Put away the smug and the arguments about what the arguments may and may not be about-everyone is free to engage on these--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - changed from delete thx to Kintetsubuffalo's sources. The statement I made earlier about a single award being too thin stands, but the Waterloo Press book (ISBN 0968282741) tips the scales. Unfortunately not in a library close to me. - Brianhe (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I appreciate what you were trying to do in listing this one, and I agree the Bronze Wolf itself needs to be notability-proofed so we don't have to go through 300 of these, however as what I found points to him being someone of notability and substance, may I prevail upon you to give this one a rethink?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References must be based on the guidelines set out at WP:RS and relevant policies.

The Corporate Catalyst, Directory of Directors, Bulletin of Ontario Securities Commission 1974, The Blue Book of Canadian Business Canadian Newspaper Services International Limited 2008, Canadian Business Magazine, Volume 49, Standard Directory of Worldwide Marketing National Register Publishing, Inland Seas, Volume 22, Issue 4 Great Lakes Historical Society are all trivial listings in directories, none of which provide anything more than Hartog's name. As per WP:BASIC, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. It futher explains that Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.

It has also been put forward that Hartog is notable because he is listed on some patents. Being listed as an inventor on a patent is also a trivial mention. While the invention listed in a patent may possibly be notable, this does not automatically confer notability on the inventor. Looking at the patents, neither are particularly notable - one is for a sink bowl and the other is for a sink attachment.

The next reference is a member statement provided in the Canadian House of Commons on his death. I can only see a snippet but nevertheless I believe that this contributes to notability although I would hesitate to rely solely on a mention as a measure of notability. I would also be sure that you cannot rely on the factual accuracy of anything said in the House of Commons, especially for the purposes of an encyclopedic article.

The final reference is a book where Hartog is the subject written by Shannon Teahen. This source from St. Jerome's University describes the background to the book as follows:

Shannon Teahen (BA ’07) celebrated the launch of her book Robbert Hartog: A Lifetime of Changing Lives in January at the Midland YMCA. Shannon was completing her master's degree in History at the University of Waterloo in 2008 when Prof. Kenneth McLaughlin approached the circulation desk of St. Jerome’s University Library, where Shannon worked part-time, to offer her the opportunity to write this book. Since then she has travelled across Ontario, to Europe and Thailand, discovering the role Hartog played as a businessman, philanthropist, community leader, initiator, supporter, booster, and mentor.

Also, I believe the book is self-published (publisher listed as University of Waterloo Press which caters for self-publishing and on-demand printing). For me, I would hesitate to rely on this book as a third-party as articles should be based on reliable third-party published sources from reliable authors and we do not currently have enough details to assess this book. Perhaps someone could access a copy of the book to determine whether it is a reliable source? -- HighKing 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be notable if rewritten to emphasise the business career. But if member statements in the HoC are like items inserted in the US Congressional Record they are worth exactly nothing, as each representative can have printed anything they like. They don't even have to go to the trouble of actually saying it. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just ran a quick search, and found an newspaper article from which I improved & sourced article. The article, a profile that also covers significant civic involvement and scouting, was prompted by his philanthropy; but it is from a small city daily and I therefore presume that it is a WP:RS. (I linked here form an AFD about another Scout volunteer. I have a personal admiration for immigrants who found multi-million $$$ corporations, sell up, and make huge gifts to charity.) Founding a major corporation confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kintetsubuffalo: I think the better question is: where did you look?..that you found a dozen print sources not available online in 15 minutes. Furthermore, a google patent search is not a reliable source, and the search besides returns two unremarkable patents, with the rest of the results appearing to be references to him, and not anything by, or principally about him. As pointed out above, some portion of the references to those who have access to them, seem to be only trivial mention, and a hat tip in the HoC, which, without further context, doesn't necessarily demonstrate anything other than the goodwill of an MP. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thus evaporates the fragile ceasefire that was starting to hold earlier today... See that strip above that reads (Find sources: "Robbert Hartog" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)? That's where I looked. Go ahead and keep your head in the sand, but taken cumulatively, looks an awful lot like Hartog is in fact notable, meanwhile your statement above "there appears to be literally nothing else available to write about" was written without actually trying to look. Just sayin'.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Catalyst - Literally a single passing mention
Directory of Directors - Literally a single passing mention
The Blue Book of Canadian Business - Literally a single passing mention
Canadian Business Magazine - Literally a single passing mention
Inland Seas - No idea, snippet view only that doesn't mention him
Standard Directory of Worldwide Marketing - Literally a single passing mention
Multiple patents - No, two patents, a google search is not a reliable source, and the patents are of no apparent importance

So maybe to clarify, when I said that I find nothing, what is implied is that I take sources like these, and I completely disregard them, because they are the definition of trivial coverage. What I don't do is simply copy/paste a google book search to make it look like there's lots of coverage of this individual where there isn't.

There was no cease fire because there was no war. If you make a good argument I will agree with you. If you make a poor one I will not. This is a poor argument, and these sources you have loaded onto the article, some of which you don't even have access to because there is no ebook version, should be removed, because they add no information, do not contribute to notability, and were added without regard for their importance, reliability, and above all context, which for most of them you don't even have to evaluate in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Hartog, who arrived in Canada as an immigrant, was a successful businessman. News archive searches on his name turned up articles in major publications mention his appointment to the Boards of Directors of several corporations. In addition to the corporation I added to the article, he was president and general manager Huronia Precision Plastics, and I didn't go beyond the second page of the search. In those 2 pages - in addition to several appointments to Boards of Directors - he was in the news for his donation to a College, and to the YMCA, and appeared in a feature profile of a local busineess owner reminiscing about how Hartog intorduced him to the Boy Scouts. This is an inferior article, largely sourced to primary sources when I came to it, obviously started by an editor interested in Hartog's commitments to Scouting. However, my searches indicate that Scouting was only one of his civic/philanthropic commitments, that he was given sundry awards by other civic organizations, and that he was able to make these gifts because he was a documentably successful founder of successful businesses. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN Not the most thorough HEYMANN ever, but I did clean up the lede, removed a paid obit used as a source. I also rewrote the 2nd paragraph, which is WP:RS to the 2 newspaper articles found, added, and cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The ambiguity over "has been nominated for one several times" is worth looking into though, so I will request clarification on WT:BIO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Parks (author)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Unable to find any secondary sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parks's first collection and some of his stories have been nominated for a number of awards. While the previous poster may not have been able to locate any secondary sources, I have managed to track down five in less than an hour, some of the content of which I have incorporated into the article. Given that the author's notability is not difficult to support, and a reasonable number of secondary sources are available, I do not believe the argument for deletion is sustainable. BPK (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not secondary sources. Also, could you provide something to support that the awards are "well-known and significant", per WP:ANYBIO. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my vote is not made less valid by your quibble with the reasoning behind it, any more than yours is by my quibbles with it. That said, I have no objection to addressing them.

While the actual content of the interview quoted would likely be considered primary rather than secondary, the introduction to it, from which most of the material I cited comes, has no direct attribution to the author, and should be considered as deriving from the general knowledge of the interviewer or the editor of the publication. Hence, secondary.

As for your request regarding the awards: really? I would regard it as silly, since their significance is common knowledge to followers of the genre, but perhaps you are not among that coterie. In that instance, let me just point out that wikipedia itself attests to the significance of the awards through its articles on them; I therefore refer you to those articles. The World Fantasy Award has "been described by book critics such as The Guardian as a 'prestigious fantasy prize', and one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo and Nebula Awards (which cover both fantasy and science fiction)." The Mythopoeic Awards article contains no such highfalutin claim for them, merely noting that they are "given by the Mythopoeic Society to authors of outstanding works in the fields of myth, fantasy, and the scholarly study of these areas." However, if you propose deleting that article on that ground, I suspect you will raise a much bigger squawk than your proposal in regard to the present article.

You are on surer critical ground with the SF Age Reader's Poll; no article, and it's likely significant only to readers of that magazine, though certainly indicative of the popularity of the stories voted on by those readers. Citing it, however, supports the point made with the first two awards; the author is both recognized by and significant to his audience.

BPK (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has been nominated for the "World Fantasy Award" once, and the "Mythopoeic Award" once. This does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there about it being the same one. BPK (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Several" doesn't mean two. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say KEEP. He's published extensively, gotten nominated for awards, and had some small secondary notice.NoahB (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoahB: to bold his keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be sourced to at least 3 articles in Fantasy & Science Fiction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note that 3 of his books, including The Ogre's Wife, introduction written by Parke Godwin, are bluelinked. I added a couple of sources. I suspect that this got nominated because "Richard Parks" is a deidedly hard name to search - there are even other authors named Richard Parks. Honestly, guys, the Actors Guild insists that actors change their names to something unique. Keep and suggest that this this writer change his name to Richardopoulous Parkskinsky - or somehting else that would be easy to search.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Intent

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

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

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

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

Creator of article removed PROD; seems to be a clear case of attempting to make an unknown term more popular. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coffee, this is not an unknown term. Please just simply run a google search for "User Intent". You will see. Here is a link to google's result page: https://www.google.com/search?q=user intent&hl=en&gl=us Thanks. JoseRolles (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed the code at the top, the notice from Wikipedia was that I can remove it if I added a description to the Save Change. Which I did: "User Intent" is a huge topic in the world of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) and SEM (Search Engine Marketing). You can see that there is somewhat outdated content in web search query#Types and it only touches on it a small bit.

Thanks JoseRolles (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some references for this term

Publication from Google discussing "user intent" under section "12.7 Understanding User Intent" (page 61 in PDF): Google Search Evaluator Guidelines.pdf
Article from Microsoft mentioning "query intent": Building Effective Query Classifiers
Marketing glossary: Unbounce Conversion Glossary: User Intent: Definition
Other articles: The Daily Egg: The Conversion Optimization Guide to User Intent

Thanks.

JoseRolles (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JoseRolles: From WP:NOTNEO: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: See secondary sources below:

Here are some journals and papers (secondary sources) about the term.

"Classifying the user intent of web queries using k-means clustering," Kathuria, Ashish et. al. Emerald Insights, Vol. 20 No. 5, 2010, Pages 563-581. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 16 July 2010.
"Discovering and Understanding Word Level User Intent in Web Search Queries," Roy, Rishiraj Saha et. al. Journal of Web Semantics, Vol. 30 (2015): Special issue on Semantic Search. Journal of Web Semantics, 27 July 2014.
"Understanding user intent on the web through interaction mining," Caruccio, Loredana et. al. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Volume 31 Issue PB, December 2015, Pages 230-236. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, FL, USA, 1 December 2015.
"The effect of user intent on the stability of search engine results," Truran, Mark et. al. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 62 Issue 7, July 2011, Pages 1276-1287. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA, 1 July 2011.
"Determining the User Intent of Web Search Engine Queries," Jansen, Bernard J. et. al. WWW 2007, May 8–12, 2007. WWW 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 8 May 2007.

203.233.111.21 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Book on advertising about user intent

Here is an excerpt from a Cambridge-published book on advertising Understanding Sponsored Search: Core Elements of Keyword Advertising

"The user intent [40, 41, 42] is somewhat unique to Web searching. So, given the importance and application of intent, we cover it here.

What can we learn from underlying intent of a searcher's key terms?

Naturally, different queries often have different underlying needs, and these underlying needs often unduce different types of searcher behavior, from click-through behavior to browsing behavior. For example, empirical studies have noted that broad informational queries (e.g., digital camera) requre more browsing by searchers relative to more focused queries (e.g., find a Nokia camera) [43].

The research into user intent in Web search begins with Broder [40], who proposed three broad user-intent classifications for Web queries: navigational, informational, and transactional. This framework was based on empirical observation, and it has been supported by a string of empirical research in the area of Web searching. For example, Spink and Jansen [44] report that e-commerce-related queries varied from approximately 12 percent to 24 percent using various Web search engine transaction logs. Jansen, Spink, and Pedersen [45] stated that there was a significan use of search engines as a navigation appliance."

Excerpt from Understanding Sponsored Search: Core Elements of Keyword Advertising, Jansen, Jim, Pennsylvania State University. Page 44. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, July 2011.

JoseRolles (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: An early journal in 2002 that talks about the term

An early journal in 2002 that talks about the term by Broder also used as a reference in web search query Wikipedia article.

"A Taxonomy of Web Search," Broder, Andrei. SIGIR Forum, Fall 2002, Vol. 36, No. 2, pages 4-5. SIGIR: Special Interest Group On Information Retrieval, Fall 2002.

JoseRolles (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is one for Wiktionary. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think JoseRolles has fairly well demonstrated that there has been significant coverage over an extended period of time, that is, specifically discussing the concept, and not simply using the term.. I will point out though that, since the article describes a concept, it should be moved to User intent, with the lowercase second word. TimothyJosephWood 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but kill the section "The Different Types of User Intents" -- with the red links, it looks like a part of a promo campaign. The fewer brand names the article contains, the better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was User requested deletion, as per below. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EMac as an external monitor

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

Wikipedia is not an how-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
o.k. I will try and move it to wikibooks which seems to be the appropriate place for a how-to guide. In the meantime I've copied the content to my sandbox --RockyHIll

Thanks. I've placed a {{db-author}} tag on this, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as a Copyvio RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Ortega

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

unsourced, wikipedia should not be used as a source TheDasherLegendXD 11:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable subject - article is primarily of promotional intent.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation of https://www.createspace.com/5709008. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Dallas

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

Delete: as non-notable New Zealand singer; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 08:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I would expect virtually every baby-boomer New Zealander would know the "Tumblin' Down" song, and most of us also "Pinocchio" although I had no idea until just now that they were sung by the same person. I'll make some improvements to the article.-gadfium 21:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the references listed, the subject is not ready for its own article space. No reliable sources talking about the subject in-depth. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@gadfium: I am in the very last year of the generation known as the "Baby Boomers", and I am not a New Zealander. I only know from GNG. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 00:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)-gadfium 00:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maria Dallas is a significant artist with the NZ pop music history - omitting her would be senseless. The article is a bit sub-standard and needs more research but she will meet GNG. She would have significant national coverage throughout her singing career in the NZ media NealeFamily (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMUSIC. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 1960s NZ music icon. Paora (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiles shipped with malware

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

Author removed a PROD tag, but the core concerns remain. At best, this is listcruft that should be renamed to "List of mobile phones shipped with malware." But there is no particular need for that list: it is constantly changing and while individual incidents might be notable (and maybe there's even notability in the general concept of mobile phones shipping with malware), an orphaned list of them seems unlikely to stay current or add significant value. The article at mobile malware does a better job on this subject and I do not recommend a merge for the same reasons above (too hard to keep up to date and no value in it), and a redirect seems needless given that it's orphaned. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of WP:LISTN or WP:GNG Spiderone 08:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic article and does not appear to pass WP:LISTN. Reads more like a guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erasma Arellano

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

Completely unsourced BLP that fails GNG and BIO as long as my BLPPROD stands after it removed by some editor who appeared to be sourced. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The subject was a bronze medalist in the Asian games in 1958. and per WP:NTRACK, he qualifies for an article per criterion #3, "Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)". The argument to delete is grounded in the claim that it is "unsourced", while half of this two-sentence stub is the listing of the source, which has been there from the very moment this article was posted. They are sourcing it to the piece on the subject in the book Filipino World Champions, published by National Book Store in 2005. If you doubt the existence of this book, you can find a record of it here. Here is its Worldcat record. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now expanded the article, so that it specifically mentions the medal, and has a web-based source that can easily be used to verify the claim. I suggest that the nominator consider revoking his nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wittybee

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

Non notable app. Can not find independent reliable sources which can establish notability. Mar11 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indication of notability or significance. In addition, this content belongs on the developer's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable tool/app. No reliable coverage at all. Author is SPA, making edits to various related pages advertising for this tool. possible COI . A facebook account with same name as author lists Wittybee technologies as employer. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GNG failure Spiderone 07:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 08:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence provided or found to indicate that this meets the WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete and salt. Already created and deleted twice per G11. Basically no coverage of the app that I can find. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete--Subject fails WP:NSOFT.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. As a download site, Softpedia cannot be considered independent, and in any case, one ref is insufficient. Dialectric (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can still restore the page history if anyone needs it, but per Sbmeirow below it is a useless redirect due to the typo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARMv7TDMI

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

1) Minor subset of ARM7. 2) Article name is incorrect, because "v" should not be in the title, since that is typical of ARM architecture instead of ARM cores. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ARM7 per nom.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Processors are not a category I edit often, but what a waste of space this page seems! Its present contents would fill no more than an extra sentence on any of the main ARM architecture pages. Stroller (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I no longer need anything from ARMv7TDMI, so go ahead and delete it whenever you want. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HSC-1 Makedon

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

No credible sources to confirm existence of this. Whilst not going as far as a deliberate hoax, it does seem to be a fabrication, rather than a real missile. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search turns up 370 hits. Are you sure it doesn't exist? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google searching for orcs and hobbits turns up even more, but I don't believe in them either.

The problem is the low quality of these sources. I've seen nothing of them which is credible and in depth. I think that there is "a thing" (looking more like a jet model aircraft than anything else) which is the Makedon, but it's not a credible weapon or capable of carrying a useful warhead. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - Google finds a few hits at "Hellenic Stand-off Cruise-1", ~~seems notable~~. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But as Andy Dingley says, none of the hits seem reliable, mostly forums and blogs. Perhaps this was a rumor that wasn't real, perhaps it was a secret project that didn't work, perhaps many things. Who knows? I changed my !vote to delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V; no reliable sources in the article or have been presented at this AfD to confirm that this is not a hoax, and is indeed notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziehm Imaging

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

De-prodded without improvement or rationale. Searches did not turn up anything other than mentions or WP:ROUTINE articles. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion But a little bit of background for German readers: There was a discussion prior to our article creation on deWiki. German article was a lot later created by a SPA, not the user who created our article. Same user also initated the discussion above. Agathoclea (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This company, for medicine, is notable because of the introduction of the first flat panel for X ray. This changed all the market because you could capture the images by a computer. EstonianMan (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unless there is much stronger third party evidence that they actually did create the first imaging device that permitted computer capture of xray images. From the sources, it seems more likely that they invented a relatively minor modification. Our article onthe type of device [[18]], has a 2006 references; their device has one from only 2010. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company going about its business; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soumaya Akaaboune

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

PROD removed from article. Has had a number of bit parts in various movies but hardly any references and therefore fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. -- HighKing 17:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as the listed works are in fact trivial and none of them came close at all to being "significant" so we shouldn't damningly mistake it. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not suggest that she has had anything but trivial roles. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Marx Ellsberg

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

Ellesberg is an activist who lacks adequate coverage to demonstrate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: fails notability, GNG. Quis separabit? 08:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibex (band)

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

Notability is not inherited. The band is already mentioned on the Mercury page. No releases or otherwise notable under the citeria of WP:MUSIC. Page has no citations. Karst (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would references make it keepable? Happy to track them down (it all came from a web search, iirc) if useful. Stevage 23:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stevage. Yes, references makes all the differences in the world. They would need to indicate stand alone notability, however. So far everything indicates this bands connection to Queen (or at least Freddy Mercury), which seems the proper place for this information. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helvar

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

Promotional article, previously deleted as G11. The article, like the Finnish article on which it's based, is the work of WP:SPAs. The source material is all primary sources, and a Google search only throws back press release material of the "Architect & Architect have specified Helvar lighting in their prestigious new development" peacock variety. It's G11 with the source material, non-notable without. Cabayi (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional and most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site; not clear what value it's adding here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fixer Upper (TV series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Gaines

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

Both Chip Gaines and Joanna Gaines are only notable for their show Fixer Upper (TV series). There is no reason for these pages to exist, everything can reside under the show page with a host section. See a similar AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek El Moussa. - Galatz ^Talk 03:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 04:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 04:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the Chip Gaines article while going through BLP PRODs and contributed most of the content to it, and based the Joanna article on it as a something to build off of when there was more time and its not the holiday weekend. These individuals most certainly meet WP:NACTOR criteria #2 with a large fan base. They are the stars of one of the most popular shows on cable TV, have had a book on the NYT bestseller list for the past nine weeks including leading it in the number one spot for one week (displacing a Bill O'Reilly book) [19] [20], and have had media coverage of people paying a premium on AirBnB to live in houses renovated by them [21]. The book also qualifies them for under inclusion under WP:NAUTHOR #3 as a well known work with multiple periodical articles and reviews [22] [23] [24]. Combine the recent negative press they've received with the above, they meet WP:GNG easily even if you disagree with the subjective nature of the wording of the subject notability guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that two total articles are nominated for deletion herein: Chip Gaines and Joanna Gaines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Joanna Gaines links for completeness. --Finngall ^talk 18:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. "everything can reside under the show page with a host section" appears to be suggesting a merge rather than deletion. in which case this should be closed and a merge discussion started. --Michig (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to article on the show. While the attack on them for the statements by their minister is a bit unrelated to the show, it can still be covered in that article. There is really only one notable thing, their TV show, so there is no need for 3 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree for most people notable for one HGTV show, but the reason I stepped in on the BLP PROD was because WP:NACTOR #2 screams like it applies here to me. They launched a #1 NYT Bestseller based on their personalities from the show, people are intentionally vacationing in Airbnbs designed by them, and People Magazine running a cover story on them (not to mention the too many to name fluff pieces in the gossip and entertainment magazines about them). Top that with them being the stars of what is arguably the most popular non-news show on cable [25]. If they don't qualify as having a "large fan base or cult following" I don't know what would. That's all in addition to the notability from the book and the controversy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Fixer Upper (TV series); the fact that ppl vacation in Airbnbs designed by the subjects could be just as well covered in the show article. The minor religious controversy is trivia and does not need to be covered in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Sheibani Nia

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

Nothing at all for actual independent notability and substance since he's simply a locally known and active orthodontist (a career in itself quite rarely notable, unless actually significant) and the memberships and honors are simply trivial and unconvincing, none of which are outstandingly major. Everything else shows no actual signs of a notable article and there's clear advertising motivations here. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merely being credited with patents doesn't establish notability. I've also warned the article's creator for copyright violations to multiple articles. Primary intent is promotional, and it's fair to assume WP:COI is in play. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per A7. Article has been previously deleted here. This is a recreation with different capitalization in the title. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Article Admin Answer~~

~~For every title in This article there are plenty of strong sources, and if anyone believes there is only one violating adress it first. before that please remove the tag for delition article~~ - Block evasion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Williams (safety)

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

Does not meet general notability or American football notability guidelines because he has not played at a professional level. Declaring for the NFL draft is no guarantee of playing in the NFL. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree. Forget the draft stuff, he clearly passes GNG.--Yankees10 03:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First-team All-Pac-12 in 2015, second-team this year. Has 11 career interceptions for a major program. Lizard (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since no one bothers to abide by WP:BEFORE, I've taken it upon myself to do the work for you and have added references that should satisfy GNG. You're welcome Lizard (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we judge and base these articles by the applicable notability and, in this case, it's football and since he's not played in actual team-league, there's no notability, simply stating "But we should accept it!" is not notability itself; the AllPac is entirely trivial and isn't significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, as per the sources added to the article by Lizard. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what @SwisterTwister: means by an 'actual team-league'... they definitely have teams in the Pac-12 and it is a league, per se. We judge these articles first and foremost on whether or not the subjects have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. GNG > football-specifically notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, although not by that much given that the 2 best articles are both from the same newspaper. But I think there is enough. I too do not understand @SwisterTwister:'s concerns, since a special notability guideline is irrelevant if the subject passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems that the article has sources to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CCExtractor Development

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

While their program CCExtractor does appear to be widely used, other than tech forums, tutorials, or pages affiliated with the organization, I was unable to find enough significant reliable coverage for either the organization or its programs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources that establish the notability of the company. It's more likely, in fact, that we'll get enough sources to write an article on CCExtractor itself before we get enough for the company, so I'd recommend focusing on writing an article about that subject instead. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched and couldn't find notability either. Level C (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Wong

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

An unsourced biography for which I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. It is not possible to verify the filmography and in any case they seem to be minor roles which wouldn't fulfil WP:NACTOR. The note on the talk page "notable figure from Singapore. Page is needed for future references by directors/ media industries" makes me feel this page is simply for promotion. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has only acted in minor roles that do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She seems to have featured in multiple serials. But I've not been able to confirm the significance of her roles in the episodes/films she's acted in. Lourdes 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Meltzer

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

No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALIST. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local broadcast journalist with all the sources either created by her or by her employers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis she is simply a young journalist and Wikipedia isn't a directory of journalists. I can find no writing about her online. Of the two citations, one is by her employer and the other is a piece written by herself. Sionk (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks depth of coverage in third party sources. Flat Out (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aakatayi (film)

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

See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are seldom notable unless the production itself has been notable. Google search reveals considerable pre-release publicity but no news. This article contains peacock language, which can be removed, but the film isn't notable yet anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Sources in the article, except India Live Today, are unreliable, and the India Live Today source mainly talks about Ameesha Patel rather than the film itself. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see depth of coverage of the movie that even approaches 'capsule review' Fails WP:NFILM. Also doesn't appear to satisfy the final paragraph of WP:NFF. Gab4gab (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoons (song)

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

While I like the song, there is no indication that the song is notable. As a hidden track and not charting it's barely known. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this song is so notable is because it was so popular on the U.S. Christian Pop charts in 1999/2000, and then suddenly fell out of favor among national groups who took the song literally. It was a huge controversy in Christian music at the time. The song was included on the album "Wow 2000: The Year's Top Christian Artists & Songs," and the controversy is documented in the articles "The Cartoon Song by Chris Rice" and "Chris Rice and the Great 'Cartoons' Controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grattan33 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing enough found to support general or [WP:NSONG] Current sources rely on interviews of Chris Rice and blog posts from sites without editorial policy. The controversy aspect sources are again blog posts. Lacks independent coverage by reliable sources. Gab4gab (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grattan33. While it may not meet NSONG, the controversy around the song itself meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

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

Page has previously been deleted multiple times. No indication of notability, and highly WP:PROMO. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the org's web site, not here. WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable professional association with borderline promotional content. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarena Special

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

Non-notable racehorse. Has no wins of significance in any major race and fails general notability guidline Bcp67 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this horse's successes or near successes appear to have been in major races, all being in maiden and selling races, and I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In fact the racing record seems to be just as lacking in notability as my daughter's horse, a thoroughbred former racehorse. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looker (Software)

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

insufficient notability for an encyclopedia ; the references are mere notices of funding. The claim in the article to be the first such product is not documented DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. I tried to work on it a bit back in August, but agree it is too soon for Wikipedia. The current article still veers into marketing-speak a bit. Indeed, it might be the first with a total "cloudy" approach, but from the outside looks similar to similar offerings to Tableau Software etc. which are more established, and thus have a better case for notability. W Nowicki (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Plan (book)

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

Some secondary coverage, but no significant indication of notablity: lots of self-agrandizing sources, speaking arrangements, and other spaces which the author and/or publisher would have control over. Sadads (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any substantial coverage. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-published/self-promoted. Fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalleh Company

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

A Google search shows that the company exists, because it has written about itself, but does not show that third parties have written about it, which would be corporate notability.

This may qualify for WP:A7 or WP:G11, but the speedy deletion templates are being removed by unregistered editors, and an AFD is more permanent. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per, among others, this source from The Guardian, which says "Among food producers, Kalleh has grown into an empire since it was formed in the 1980s. Market research firm Euromonitor International ranks it among the world’s top 50 brands, just two places behind Nutella and two above noodles-producer Maruchan" and this one in a book published by the Oxford University Press that says that it had 26% of the Iranian cheese market in 2013. That looks like pretty obvious notability to me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept then the title should be changed to Kalleh (company), because its name is simply "Kalleh". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems large / significant enough to warrant an article. Sources above and beyond those mentioned above probably exist in Persian. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the IP above. See also the company's appearance in this graph of the world's leading food brands across the period 2004-2014. AllyD (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company rispects WP:CORP in my view but the page need to be improved again with more reference and fix division.Vegas33 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Grander

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

Does not seem to meet the WP:GNG criteria a search on the web brought up very little in terms of reliable secondary sources. I just found self-published websites and a couple of blogs. Domdeparis (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No credible claim of significance. retracted, see later note -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title and the name used for him to Johann Grander which I should have used at the beginning. The subject of the article is evidently of some considerable importance in industry and paramedical therapy in multiple countries and the fact that the supposed process named after him may not yet be widely covered does not mean it will not have some importance. As I have restated in the Talk page stating why deletion would be a big mistake, there appears to be a process named after and invented by this man that remains mysterious but is in use in industry from Europe to Asia and deleting his name is wrong fro Wikipedia, when lots of people might well want to know who this man is and what can be said to be known about what he is claimed to have invented. If they only have self-published stuff by his fans and family to go on, they will remain misinformed! Iph (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is covered in German Wikipedia [26] and if it is fine there it should be fine in English!

Him having a German Wikipedia article isn't entirely relevant, as it could very well be that the German article ought to be deleted as well. However, I see on that page that he was awarded the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art Cross, so I retract my speedy deletion nomination. I'm having trouble researching Grander further due to most of his coverage being in German, but at this point I think it's a weak keep from me. His biography written by de:Susanne Dobesch, winning the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art Cross, and various other coverage (like this Vice article) would seem to somewhat indicate notability. The article definitely needs to be heavily improved to better explain who Grander is and why he's notable. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is like Homeopathy: the man invented something that is quite a big subject for enthusiasts and much talked about, and to ignore him and it is only to encourage the proponents of pseudoscience rather than to cover it. To exclude it would be like demanding the deletion of the articles on Homeopathy and its inventor. Somebody needs to translate the much longer German article on Revitalized water but I don't have time now. Iph (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with others on this question. Although main stream science doesn't accept the concept of Revitalised Water, we have to remember that, at one time, science didn't accept the existence of continental drift, rogue waves or above cloud lightning, either. These were all subsequently proven to be real. The main thing that intrigues me about this is the industrial factor. Businesses don't normally continue to spend money on equipment or processes that do not provide the intended benefit. They, after all, have accountants that can quantify any improvements (or lack thereof) in terms of actual dollars, and technical staff who can see first hand if there are any improvements in their processes. Pat Lawless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resinguy (talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Resinguy: We are clearly in a case of WP:PSI and the fact that businesses continue to spend money on this process is not proof that it is effective or real. Don't forget that businesses are run by people and people can make mistakes and accountants work with the information that they are given. There are no rigorous scientific experiments that prove the claims. The difference between continental drift and this is that continental drift is a theory that was elaborated to explain observations that suggested that the continents were once part of the same land mass. Grander thought that water could transfer information via a mysterious process but not through an observed phenomenon he then invented and copyrighted a processus that would make his imagined theory possible and then made claims about the results of this process that have yet to be proven. If you want an exemple of companies being conned by an imagined process have a look at this one that cost Elf $150 million Great Oil Sniffer Hoax. Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MedExpress

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

Not seeing enough to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any less notable than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Fox_Pharmacy or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemist_Direct? Uk82340 (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion on one specific article, which does not preclude distinct discussions on others in the future. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an online pharmacy which provides delivery in its local area. There is enough coverage to verify the basic facts, and the firm has obtained some coverage around their surveys on STIs etc [27] but I am seeing nothing to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. (Note that there are other similarly named businesses, such as an urgent care concern in the USA.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; just a company going about its business and close to A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant and not adhere to Wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morena (Romanian singer)

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

Does not seem to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC I could find no "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" about her supposed international tour. I could find no independent sources about her being a top-model working for Givenchy or Rabanne. Domdeparis (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She does meet WP:NMUSIC. "Deep in Love" was certified Platinum by the Federation of the Italian Music Industry. Hang googles (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the trouble is that she was the vocalist on this record and not the main artist, if we stick to the notability guidelines this doesn't really allow her her own page, but this might mean that she meets the GNG criteria anyway but there is a lot of unsourced information which I will tag. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her main claim to notability seems to be that she was once romantically linked with Tom Boxer (himself not especially notable). The sources simply don't stand up to scrutiny -- we have:
- a puff piece in a local newspaper (sample interview questions: "How did Boxer conquer you?" "What are three of your favourite places in the world?" "What are the secrets of your beauty?")
- a spread of provocative photographs in a women's magazine
- some tabloid trash about some fashion competition in which the subject took part
Clearly, the level of coverage does not justify an article, so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the link to the photos, that's brightened a very grey day here in Paris...Domdeparis (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Ainsley Brown

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of independent source about the subject. - Mr X 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO Guidelines: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

Top 30 Startups at tech week (filmfundr) nomination at the Alley Resilience awards (centiment) Digital Hollywood Awards (filmfundr)

The person has made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[8]

Media on contributions to artificial inelttigence and film financing:

http://www.dhsessions3.com/Summit16Wed10.html http://www.dhsessions2.com/Tuesday15Fl11.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t735EL1eua8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl-vqymZKuE https://wp.nyu.edu/productionlab/events/event-archive/film-fundr/ https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/filmfundr-com

White papers academic presence:

https://www.academia.edu/30499407/Centiment_Data_Management_Platform http://www.livestream.nyc/events/2015/11/14/media-next

The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

Google search : "micah ainsley brown" - almost three million results showing press releases and public information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centiment (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment YouTube is not considered a viable Wikipedia source, nor are press releases. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search for "Micah Ainsley Brown" filtered for news returns exactly one hit, and it only mentions him in passing. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed - most of the sources are new media outlets, startup competitions and smaller publishers which do not show up under the google news filter. A search of "micah brown" and "filmfundr" brings back 721 results, most of which is small publisher and affiliate driven, news, but still public presence specifically focused on film which qualifies as fulfilling this requirement "The person has made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." a search of "micah ainsley brown" specfcially returns 2460 results of a similar nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centiment (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article to reflect wikipedia standards are welcome, however the evidence does indicate that the subject fulfills wikipedia guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centiment (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearche brings up twitter, facebook, youtube and other sources by Brown or entities associated with him, a clear case of WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Mohd Azriyn Ayub

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

This player has not won any major tournaments and is not ranked anywhere near the top of his game. The only sources are two listings sites, both run by the same organisation. This fails WP:NOTDIR.

Over the past months there has been a rash of creations of article on players like this, with absolutely no provable claim to meting WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This player meet WP:NBADMINTON #3 --Stvbastian (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Wikipedia has well-defined inclusion standards that enjoy widespread consensus, these are set out at WP:GNG. We require reliable independent sources. We require these because - especialyl for living individuals - we have to be able to verify that all information is neutral. If your subject-specific essay says that someone this far down the world rankings, with one second place in one of a large number of similar tournaments of only marginal importance, is automatically notable as a result, then your essay is wrong. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBADMINTON appears to be a notability guideline; to call it an essay merely undercuts your own argument, JzG ... not least, we can all click on the link and find that you are misrepresenting the status of the page in an apparent attempt to bolster your delete argument. The subject, meeting #3 of what appears to be the community norm, I'm bound to !vote keep --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, the concerned player doesn't meet WP:NBADMINTON #3. That's because the highest level international events of Thailand's are Thailand Open & Thailand Masters, both of which are Grand Prix Gold events. The above player reached to the final of Smiling Fish International, which is graded as International Challenge. In fact, the Smiling Fish is Thailand's lowest level/graded international event. BTW, you can check the relevant gradings/levels here. Having said that, I guess the above player meets #5, as he has won a doubles title in his country's national championships, and Malaysia regularly sends athletes to the Olympics.

PS: I concur with JzG. The badminton's notability criteria is lax. But that should be discussed at the WP:BADMINTON's talk page. In fact, I've just started a relevant thread there. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I agree to NitinMlk, that the criteria must be changed especially for the top countries having more than one top tournament in the ciruit. The mentioned tournament here is at least comparable to the highest European tournaments in Slovakia, Czech, Belgium or in Africa like Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa. --Florentyna (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP - An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Here we have 3 independent sources (references 3 to 5), plus [28]. At least the 2 gold medals at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games are generating in my eyes the notability of the player - so again: Keep. --Florentyna (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Show Luo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Limit (Show Luo album)

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

Album seems to fail GNG. WP:A7 does not apply to albums. -- Dane ^talk 19:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NALBUM and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at Chinese Wikipedia article for this album it appears there may be enough source material for WP:NALBUM. Although my attempts to access the material and translate leaves me uncertain. Gab4gab (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Show Luo as the album is not independently notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump news and television appearances

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

Pure listcruft and trivia, he has appeared on the news media many times, no forseeable use. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If complete, this list would never end. Serves no educational purpose. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramaksoud2000: If it is complete, the list will end, if it will never end, it will never be complete, your sentence contradicts itself. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant that if an attempt at completion was made, the list would never end. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly worthless, like the man himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list, to be comprehensive, would have to be updated every single time Trump appears on TV - that's clearly a ridiculous thing to do - Wikipedia is not a News site, it's meant to be an encyclopaedia. A running tally of TV appearances is not appropriate here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information par excellence. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As amused I am by the hatnote labelling The Apprentice as a sitcom, there is no conceivable reason why we would need to maintain a list to exhaustively and indiscriminately document every single time the POTUS-elect ever happened to appear on TV, reaching back to five or six (or more) years before he was even POTUS-elect. In theory, such a list could be compiled for absolutely every single person who has existed at all since the dawn of television broadcasting — but what's it's lacking is any real point. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless listcruft.LM2000 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Arslanian

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

Puff piece article fails WP:Bio. Speaker and author has no concomitant references to support article, however supplied refs are all trade papers, links to biography, Bloomberg. Not enough to pass WP:PROF either. scope_creep (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This aspirational speaker has zero cites on GS. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply trivial and far from convincing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Bhargava

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT. References are all in context trade papers. Marketeer trying to subvert Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing as when I first saw it earlier today, nothing genuinely significant and the PR awards listed make it worse. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious vanity page on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time for School

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NFILM by not having sources independent from the subject. KAP03 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable PBS documentary series, it looks like. A multi-year multi-film kinda thing. We don't delete non-BLP articles merely for being unreferenced. The article's in very poor shape but it's a start. I'd say improve or at least tag for improvement, categorize, and keep per WP:PRESERVE, which suggests we fix fixable problems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to be sure, it needs work. However, deletion is not the appropriate solution for an article on a notable topic. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial reviews in The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Aired nationally on PBS. It's a TV documentary series, so WP:TVSERIES may be a better fit than WP:NFILM, but I believe it meets both. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Séguin

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

Self described young cinematographer, with slim sources, mix of blogs and IMDB. Unable to determine why he is notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. scope_creep (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, there is a bit more real media coverage present here than the nominator has acknowledged — but it's all to his own hometown's local media, it all just namechecks his existence in coverage of other things rather than being substantively about him, and none of it adds up to anything that would pass WP:CREATIVE for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's username "Davidjosephanselmo" corresponds directly to the CEO of the same city's main film studio, which means there's a direct professional association between the subject and the creator. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a cinematographer is entitled to have an article just because he can be verified as existing — a cinematographer gets an article when there's a substantive reason for one, such as winning an Oscar or a BAFTA or a Canadian Screen Award, or being influential enough in the field that sources are actually being written to analyze their cinematographic style, and not just for making a locally distributed short "civic pride in our city" video or speaking at the opening of a local high school's new film and video training program. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; this is also a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Agathon

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

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

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

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

Non notable minor character, fails WP:GNC; article, like every other articles about BSG characters, consists of plot summaries and nothing else. This is Wikipedia, not BSG Wiki. If you are to vote keep, please select which one and why. Cylon B (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and sanction nominator for repeated mass nominations with WP:BEFORE failures. Each of the four articles, although Kelly's appears to be the weakest, has at least two book mentions available through Google Books in the above Find Sources templates. Each meets the GNG, and thus is not a candidate for outright deletion, and merging is at most an editorial discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them per Jclemens. RSes clearly exist, and every article is a summary of what they did in-universe, which complies at least on a basic level with MOS:PLOT. Articles aren't in bad shape either. Way too early to drag out the WP:TNT. Karunamon ^✉ 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Petrov

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

PR expert who is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. What references there are, are all trade papers. Writes about pr on Huff post. Still think it is a puff piece. scope_creep (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable PR expert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, not finding multiple instances of independent, significant coverage about the subject; does not meet WP:BASIC. Also not finding significant coverage reviews of the author's books; does not meet WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as it's been CU-confirmed this was part of a mass-advertising and mass-account campaign and thus is not at all negotiable in our policies and there wouldn't be any notability since the sources are simply trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the list has not established notability and only functions as a directory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs and societies of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

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

WP:listcruft, doesn't appear encyclopedic to list these when all universities will have societies. Might be better to have a category of the articles which exist Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few if any of these clubs and societies are independently notable, and so this list clearly fails WP:DIRECTORY. I imagine that RMIT and/or its student union maintain a listing similar to this, which is where students and other interested readers should go. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep LISTCRUFT does not apply. It is not an arbitrary esoteric list. It lists entities providing a contextualised framework for social and common interest networking and activity in a specific real extant context. DIRECTORY might apply but it is not listing contact details, and no white pages listing will provide such a complete list in the one place. List articles in their own right do not need to be notable, they rarely are, and can be supporting articles to their main articles, which I suggest this does quite well. I do not think we can imagine an alternative, it either exists or it does not - the references links I tried are all dead at the moment too. I actually found it encyclopedically informative, not realising the richness of and depth of such entities available. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see there is only one link to a RMIT related article from this list. All these societies are listed at http://rmitlink.rmit.edu.au/Clubs/Search or www.su.rmit.edu.au/clubs/, which are probably more up to date then this article will ever be (WP:DIRECTORY might apply here). This list doesn't support a main article either, that would be the case if there was a Clubs and societies of RMIT. That article may be a better solution to have, with clubs being described and supported by reliable sources. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be persuading me a bit. Yes I agree Clubs and societies of RMIT would be good. Changing my keep down to a weak one. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List articles in their own right do not need to be notable. WP:N: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." There's typically an exception for navigational lists, but this is clear problem of WP:NOT. We need to make the case that it should be included via sources which would establish notability, not by what an editor says is important. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a directory of things that exist. We have lists that navigate between notable topics, and notable lists. What we'd need is for significant coverage of these as a group published in sources independent of the subject(s). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide nor a directory of social clubs, none of which are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Bublick

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

Bublick was the owner of a store that had 3 locations in the Chicago area, this is hardly a claim to notability for him, although the store itself may have been notable. The article lacks any sources. My search for sources showed up only primary ones, not secondary ones we would need to create an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and, as above, WP:NOTMEMORIAL DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with all the above. Created by SPA. MB 01:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The page history is still there for anyone who wants to create an article on the prize. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Bublick

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

Bublick is only even mentioned for giving money to establish an award is his name to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The award, the Solomon Bublick Prize, may be notable enough to merit an aricle, but there is no evidence that Bublick himself is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, not enough sources available for Bublick too remain as a stand-alone, the prize may deserve a line or two at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem article (doesn't appear to mention it there at the moment), then be broken out as it is further developed, note that article creator is Jordan E. Bublick, possibly a relative with WP:COI arising but no mention of this on article talkpage or creator's page, also, was this page previously speedily deleted as stated here (again, no mention at article or here)? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Solomon Bublick Prize and expand. The award is notable and mentioned in the articles of several recipients, which already link to Solomon Bublick (when mentioning the prize). I've gone ahead and added as many recipients as I could find from various sources (still need to add refs if the consensus is to keep). Unfortunately, I could not find a complete list of all recipients online. MB 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the prize is notable. It is given by the university, and I don't see extensive coverage of the prize itself in independent sources. To me, this seems roughly equivalent to an honourary degree. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article in the Canadian Jewish Chronicle calls the award "Israel's highest award". Maybe it should be moved to be about the award, like MB said. It seems like a reasonable result to me. Does anyone here know how to search Israeli non-English sources? That might help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrandActive

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

The page reads like an advertisement which I can deal with. Unfortunately, I am unable to find anything in-depth I can use to clean it up. A search found nothing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore page fails WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious WP:PROMOTION; also fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. No indications of notability or significance either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Franklin

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

Not notable, just a local radio announcer. Grahame (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As a Tasmanian myself, he was pretty well-known locally on radio and TV in the 1980s and 1990s, but I very much doubt he would have been known outside of the state, or possibly even outside of the broadcast area of 7HT and TasTV. The only references in the article are for a shark attack in 1971, and some links to stories about his death in local media. The possible notability claims (drumming in "top rock 'n' roll bands", DJing at Studio 54 and "association with a later world famous Australian Rock Band") are extremely vague and unreferenced. I have to say, my impression was Franklin's considerable talents in promotion were also applied to himself, so I think it would be unlikely that any of these claims can be verified outside of his company's website and the articles concerning his death (which presumably got them from his promotional material). Note: a "Jim Franklin" (which I presume is a typo) is listed as winning Countdown awards for best Tasmanian DJ in 1979 and 1980 in Australian pop music awards. This article claims five wins, but does not specify years or categories. --Canley (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads a bit like it has been written by a publicist. One secondary sources and nothing that appears to meet WP:ENTERTAINER -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to indicate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira Youth Wiffleball League

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

Summertime kiddie league that falls short of WP:GNG requirements. Notability, as per Wikipedia standards, is not evident. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Fails GNG. The city itself only has around 8000 people and its article barely says much except census info. League for 100 kids is far from notable. MB 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I'm very familiar with Maderia and a children's wiffleball league nearly anywhere would not be considered generally notable, much less in this (fairly) quiet suburb. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is definitely more suited to their blog, which coincidentally, appears to be one of the only places this has been written about. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"'

This article is one hundred percent legitimate. The league, while it does only have 150 children nowadays, used to have many more. The amount of people in the Cincinnati area that it has touched is in the thousands. It is a staple of the Cincinnati culture, not to mention the notable Andrew Benintendi who played in the league, who now plays in the MLB. Can any other youth league boast something like that? While recognition of the league may be limited now, it is projected to gain notable, national recognition this coming season, as according to their Board of Directors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffleceo33 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your advocacy, since you are the author of the article and do not want it to disappear. And I am not certain whether you are an impartial observer, given your account name. But the article misses the basic tenets of WP:ORG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This youth league subject has been mentioned by a Cincinnati paper and a tv station report. It is a league for children that has a notable former player. (even though inheritance does not help) I think more worthy sources may be found. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage in local sources of a children's wiffleball league does not confer notability, and does not pass the standard for in depth coverage as seen at WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Page, Ellen (September 19, 2016). "First day. First shot. Feeling grateful. #mercy @katemara @amyztemies #killerfilms ❤️📽". Instagram.com. Retrieved September 19, 2016.

[2] Page, Ellen (October 21, 2016). "Gonna miss this rockstar of a human ❤️❤️ @whodey14 #mercy #lastday". Instagram.com. Retrieved October 24, 2016.

[3] McNary, Dave (August 18, 2016). "Tali Shalom Ezer Directing Ellen Page and Kate Mara in Romantic Drama 'Mercy'". Variety. Retrieved September 19, 2016.

[4] McNary, Dave (September 20, 2016). "Brian Geraghty Joins Ellen Page-Kate Mara Romance 'Mercy'". Variety. Retrieved September 21, 2016.

[5] Erbland, Kate (August 19, 2016). "Ellen Page and Kate Mara To Star in Forbidden Romantic Drama 'Mercy'". Indiewire.com. Retrieved September 19, 2016.

[6] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Robbert Hartog"

[7] ttps://books.google.co.jp/books?id=YQZOAQAAMAAJ&q="Robbert Hartog"&dq="Robbert Hartog"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8_u3ZyKfRAhWMf7wKHYkTDyIQ6AEIUDAI

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]