Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 December	17 December >

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WriterDuet

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

Nothing establishing actual independent notability and substance and what's here is simply advert-laced and is not otherwise convincing of

WP:NOT policy, hence deletion is the only solution; sources themselves are trivial and unconvincing and lend nothing for substance. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD as it still applies along with the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. Eric-Wester (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has been created to help flesh out the screenwriting software page which has high traffic and a lack of balance, seeing as pages such as Final Draft and Fade In (software) are linked, but many others of equal importance are not. Please keep for consistency, and see recent changes to help assure a valid, unbiased and factual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbudde22 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with concerns about notability and promo content. Delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2016 (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 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Metin Kaya

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

BLP-Prod removed by author for BLP article with low quality sources. Of the three sources, one is a single line, One is the front page of the court, the third mentions him as a candidate of some kind. With valid sources could be a good article, but at the moment fails

WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I removed the
WP:POLITICIAN as a supreme court judge than the court itself? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of

primary source profiles on the website of their own employer. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

For the purposes of

WP:POLITICIAN it has always been accepted that the web site of the "employer" (which is not always a legally accurate description of the relationship to the body of which the subject is a member), such as that of a parliament or a government or a court, is sufficient. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Solely for the purposes of very basic

reliably source the article's content. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Hang googles (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep but flag for {{
refimprove}}. Sourcing definitely needs improvement, but the base notability claim is a legitimate one and better sources are out there. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment What about these other 78 of these article created in the last week or two. Here is one: Kerem Al and this one Nihad Matkap and this Ahmet Tan, Erdoğan Yazıcı, Birol Kızıltan and Márta Lacza. It is 80 articles now. They all may be notable, and they probably are notable, what what you have an editor which is busily creating a series BLP articles, sometimes a dozen a day, with mostly no references, and there seems to be no mechanism to block address it. BLP-prod tag are just removed. scope_creep (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about this article, which is about a subject that obviously passes
WP:BLPPROD tags on articles that have sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment No it's not. We are talking about the whole list. I'm really trying to be kind and get you to realize and understand that proper verifiable references are critically important. I could easily have block Afd'd the whole contents of the list, all the ones which have broken or incomplete or missing refs. However, it would have taken considerable time which I don't have coming this close to Christmas and I think it would have been a complete waste of good content. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of other people may want to comment. scope_creep (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "no it's not" are you really trying to say that this discussion is not about Metin Kaya? If so then you need to withdraw the nomination because the way that you created it says that it is about Metin Kaya, and him alone. And please cut the patronising language about "really trying to be kind". This article has, and had before you started trying to get it deleted, a proper verifiable reference saying that Kaya was a supreme court judge in a country more populous than France, the UK or Italy, easily passing
WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

ya i agree with scope creep. I thought Wikipedia was against unnamed servers, because I noticed you don't even have a user name. Please get an identity. Thank you! Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are supposed to be evaluated on the strengths of the arguments given, not on ad hominem reasons such as identity. But I suppose I must congratulate you on spotting such a difficult fact to discern as that I edit without a user name. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily a senior enough official for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets
WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Passes point 1 of the SNG for Politicians. Carrite (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Taube Bailey

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

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)

Of all the sources in this article, only three mention the subject at all. Of those, one is an

Brycehughes (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as I still concur my PROD, simply none of this is convincing to go against policy when there are such blatant concerns. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This reads like a fluff piece intended to make a non-notable person notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a lot of work went into this article, but I'm sorry to say that the subject lacks any notability. There's not one
reliable source that discusses her in any depth. Almost all of the references are just links to to the homepages of various organizations related to her. There's no way we can keep this one. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I didn't find anything in RS on Google or databases. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Delete arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is based on passing mentions, rather than Substantial, Reliable Sources - the information just isn't out there. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC) strike my !vote - see below[reply]
Speedy Delete -
WP:SNOW - Article created by a now-blocked Sockpuppet Account. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note - Creator of this article has been blocked from editing for being a Sockpuppet. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This quite clearly fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Struck votes and discussion by blocked users/socks

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep Article is based on Legitimate, Reliable Sources, such as the East Bay Timesand magazines. The information is clearly there. Not sure why the few here are having trouble with their searches. These are just two source examples of many others. The article also meets notability, especially on interfaith religious issues/movement.Pettya (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Pettya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)[reply]

The East Bay Times? Sheesh. Since when is "interfaith religious issues/movement" a criteria for notability?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The East Bay Times report is just one source noting the individual. The larger point is the individual is the reason that the Washington National Cathedral now permits interfaith marriages inside the cathedral and held it's first Jewish-Christian wedding in U.S. history! That's the notable part. This hasn't happened until this individual got involved.Pettya (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Pettya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The first source only mentions her once - that's a Passing Mention. That's the problem with the sources - if you remove the ones that only mention her name once or twice, the list shrinks very quickly. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment - The amount of times a name is listed in an article does NOT connote the notability of the subject and it's proclivity for deletion. It's the effort and works of the subject that matter, which the sources report. In light of the subject's notability in advancing interfaith dialogue- making Jewish-Christian marriages possible at the Washington National Cathedral for example, is notable in the Jewish Christian movement.Dove.Leesa (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. The standard for notability, applied to Biographies of Living Persons, specifically requires Substantial Coverage in Reliable Independent Sources. You may want to have a read of

WP:BLP. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You misunderstood, it notes "Substantial Coverage in Reliable Independent 'Sources'"...meaning plural sources...substantial mentions of the person in various sources. It does not say that one article needs to mention the individual more than five or three times. If Wiki is to execute your judgment on this then the rule would say "the single source must mention the person more than once." Since Wiki didn't write it that way...that means it's up for debate and I debate that it's notable and covered substantially.Dove.Leesa (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well your misinterpretation of the policy is quite unfortunate. Let's just see what other editors think. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Jews for Jesus is a reputable site? Or an article written by a minister?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject possesses independent notability in the realm of interfaith dialogue/movement (specifically, creating acceptance in the Washington National Cathedral of Jewish-Christian marriages- and holding the first Jewish-Christian wedding ceremony at the cathedral in U.S. history) and the federal government. The sources (just to list a few: magazines, the East Bay Times, Jews for Jesus, etc.) are clearly legitimate and show the subject's notable work.Dove.Leesa (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)[reply]
Keep. Subject is credible. The article is well written, well sourced- sources from reputable magazines and newspapers such as, the East Bay Times. Subject is notable for efforts in the interfaith dialogue and
National Cathedral in D.C. to permit Jewish Christian weddings (this is the first time in history that this has happened), representing the cathedral in interfaith dialogue at the Washington Hebrew Congregation; Subject is notable for role in presidential campaigning and federal government. Unlike Brycehughes|Brycehughes notes, the Washingtonian is a reputable magazine, just like Vogue or Vanity Fair, so his bias on the Washingtonian magazine needs to be deleted or disregarded. The subject clearly has independent notability in the interfaith dialogue movement and federal government contributions.65.222.202.205 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked user.)[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. --

desat 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Second city of the United Kingdom

A magnet for edit warring, trivia, random unreliable sources and ridiculous original research. The

talk 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak merge and strong redirect any reliable, verifiable material to the abovementioned article section, and create an anchored redirect. -- saberwyn 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ADDITIONAL: Above is a not-a-delete not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, that BBC and the New York Times are no better than blogs. THis has much more detail than the all inclusive article, and thats the way it should be. The main article is already unwieldy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times is, of course, a great source. Here's an article from the NYT identifying Birmingham as the UK's second city. And here's an article from the NYT identifying Manchester as the second city. So that's got us precisely nowhere, except to demonstrate that there is some debate over the issue: exactly what the concise statement in the main
  talk 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weak keep, seems to pass
WP:V but the potential for edit warring is high. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, plenty of high quality references. NYT and BBC! Mathmo ^Talk 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as I know, potential for a lot of edit warring isn't usually used as a reason for deletion, or most of the 'controversial articles' on wikipedia would go.Merkinsmum 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm surprised this and similar articles even exist, and that they look like original research at first glance, I've got to admit this one is well-written and decently sourced. A slight aftertaste of
WP:OR lingers after reading it, but it's nothing that would warrant deletion in my book. --Targeman 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A good article on an issue which many people might wish to look up. RegRCN 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of interest in this topic meets any notability guideline you could think of. Has plenty of sources to enable an article to be written without original research. Edit warring not a grounds for deletion. Davewild 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I just came across the article because I wanted to understand the debate and found it balanced and informative.Billlion 08:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable debate with plenty of outside sources. --Beloved freak 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources for both sides of the argument, including polls reported in the BBC, to keep it NPOV if both 'factions' chip in as they have recently.Merkinsmum 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knowing the 'first city' (London), is quite enough. This article may continue to be place for 'edit wars'. GoodDay 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet The problem with this article is that it was created to promote the view of the Manchester City Council PR department that there really is some sort of widespread debate in the country over which is the second city, and that the long-established definition of second city as second largest city is somehow no longer appropriate. A complete re-write, also emphasising that Manchester has a very good claim to be third city (with citations), might be enough to give it a properly neutral stance. TharkunColl 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge The article has plenty of rather useless information on it and would be better suited as a much shorter balanced paragraph on the
talk^┐ 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Whilst I have the greatest respect for the authors of the Second City article, this looks to me to be a classic case of more information than can reasonably fit in one article, justifying a separate one with a 'see also' link. It's also a pretty good article, and doesn't seem POV to me - perhaps people who disagree are themselves being POV in refusing to acknowledge that a debate exists? Lordrosemount 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is all about a controversial topic. Merging it into Second City will simply move the controversy there, and as such will serve no purpose. There is a genuine debate regarding the topic (as can be clearly seen simply within editors of the article), and I do not believe that the article has yet passed "the point of no return". Indeed, some good progress has recently been made. Fingerpuppet 11:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As regards the nominators view on the edit-warring, I agree with Fingerpuppet, it's seemed a bit better recently.:) with a slightly more conciliatory spirit between the editors. As to the nominator saying it's Original Research, it may be collated in the article, but it's all sourced to newspapers etc. The abundance of sources and the diversity of editor's views, I think keeps it from being POV or OR.Merkinsmum 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page is just a collection of cherry-picked POVs on an issue that is largely unimportant. It's fair enough to have a page defining Second city, but this page is an attempt to establish as fact something that can really only ever be a matter of opinion . --Escape Orbit 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a reasonably good article, with many references, on a subject of genuine interest to many who may refer to Wikipedia. – Agendum 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we end up having to block 130,000 IPs because of a dispute over this, it's more trouble than it's worth Will ^(talk) 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we'll probably just get a resolution and then an opinion in favour of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Leeds will disrupt the setting and we're back to sqaure one. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 18:46, 5 August 2007 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SolbegSoft

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

Fails

WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Available sources seem to be limited to routine business listings. - Mr X 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear and blatant advertising with WP:NOT applying. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text and references in the article do no more than establish that this is a firm going about its business. Neither these nor my searches indicate or provide
encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The evidence shows no more than existence. This should have been a A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 20 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akasa Singh

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

The subject seems to be singer who has just made their debut with one playback song in a movie. I am unable to find reliable sources to satisfy

WP:TOOSOON to me. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a playback singing role in one film is not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NMUSIC Spiderone 09:45, 21 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts

)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established in previous discussions and may be confirmed by sources such as Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives. See also
WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, the first nomination was "No Consensus", and the second was kept more upon the fact that it was a bad faith nomination, rather than notability of the subject being established. I really don't think this can be considered a case of a disruptive nomination now. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do provide the sources then, because they certainly aren't in the article. And you do realize it has been just shy of six years since the last AfD, right? Another AfD would be suitable after sixth months of no improvement, let alone six years when standards have greatly changed. If that's the only source, it's hardly enough. TTN (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has plenty of sources and I just provided another one, which the mystery IP editor confirms is pretty good. See also
WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Every single one of the sources included in the article is from an official D&D product, and are thus not independent of the subject. These can not be used to establish notability, as stated by the Notability guidelines. Like I said below, the source you provided in this AFD is, as far as I can tell, the only source that talks about this item in detail that is independent of the subject. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources are just fine as far as I'm concerned. If they are official then that makes them authoritative and so they are excellent sources. Notability is just a guideline and so is weak. I give more weight to strong core policies such as
WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

That's just a silly position and your opinion should be discounted in that case. Primary sources are worthless in establishing notability, else this site would be Wikia with a topic on every fictional element. You need third party sources. TTN (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no view on this article right now, I agree with TTN: that is a non-argument. Primary sources are often appropriate to use for information purposes, but they cannot determine notability, and notability (whether "just" a guideline or not) is what's in question here. Notability can't be ignored on the grounds that there are lots of primary sources available. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, where it is already included. The above mentioned Game Design book is actually a pretty good source, but as far I can tell through searches, it is the only non-primary source that discusses the Rod, which is not enough to support an entire article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Andrew D.
talk) 23:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the excellent source found by Andrew D. BOZ (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to list). A single source independent of the franchise, and that calls it "rod of eight parts" rather than "rod of seven parts".--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Andrew D. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2016 (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

non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Raven Queen

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

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

This article doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities where she is already included. A minor fictional deity that has no non-first party sources that I can find. I admit, its a bit confusing to look for them, as this is a super common name in various other fantasy settings, but I'm fairly confident I did a thorough enough job that, if there were any sources that would satisfy GNG, I would have seen them. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Kedveš

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

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

Non-notable kickboxer. Does not meet
WP:KICK. Basically an auto-promotion. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to satisfy
WP:GNG or Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications. from WP:KICK. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is an autobiography about a kickboxer who fails to meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for kick boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Usman (Indian politician)

Mohammad Usman (Indian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I tried
G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion but I have not seen that version of article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references are many but they are in 1980s newspapers and books. Where to get them online to meet your reference criteria?? 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC) User:Adil Usman

Did he win any election? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Usman 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)No he did not won, but contested on INC seat. The only Congress candidate to secure around 15000 votes more than anyone ever in that constitutency since the Indian Independence. Also he was the Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee of Uttar Pradesh and Working President of District Congress.Along with other contributions to the society, country and to the general masses of Lucknow.Adil Usman 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilusman009 (talk • contribs)
Adil Usman 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Mohammad Usman's father, Late Haji Hussain Ali was jailed with Jawahar Lal Nehru in Lucknow jail. His uncle and grandfather too were jailed, but his father was released on the basis of under age. The other were jailed for three months. After the Independence, Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru visited Lucknow, near Firangi Mahal and awarded freedom fighter pension to all those people who were jailed in Lucknow Jail along with him. Mohammad's Usman uncle and grandfather didn't accept the pension and denied on the basis said by his grandfather " Hum Madre Vatan Ki Kamai Nahi Khaenge", and the PM was speechless on this note. But again I don't have any internet link to validate this.Adil Usman 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilusman009 (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Fails
WP:NPOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unsuccessful politician does not get a Wikipedia article just because of the number of votes he happened to get in the process of losing the election —
conflict of interest — creator's username suggests a direct family relationship of some sort (I'm guessing "father-son", even if I can't prove that outright, but "uncle-nephew" or "grandfather-grandson" wouldn't change anything either.) Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, the UPCC secretary-ship could potentially be enough for a weak keep, but it needs to be referenced. --Soman (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having a key leadership position in a major national party would indicate notability. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:POLOUTCOMES is clear that routine coverage in elections (which I presume exists) is not sufficient for a candidate who has never been elected. I don't see any other coverage which indicates why the subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2016 (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. Notability is definitely established as many of the !votes here have cited in their rationale. Many of the !votes against keeping the article not adequately address a reason for removal per the
non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

James Cantine

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

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

fails
WP:GNG, no independent sources. No indication what makes him notables, as it is more a romantic version of a "man with a job". The Banner talk 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep-Article does require significant editing to highlight notability but Cantine appears to be more than "man with a job". Examination of current article describes notability: Cantine founded the Arabian Mission which has become the American Mission Hospital of Bahrain. C-Class article seems more appropriate than deletion. Article requires improved organization, elimination of excessive links, clear presentation of notability in Cantine's role in founding American Mission Hospital. Finally article was just created and original editor should have more time to improve.

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Breamk (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nothing here for any applicable notability, regardless of the information and sources as none of it amounted to convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was one of the founders of a notable institution that helps plenty of people. I see in 1924 they had over thirty thousand people they helped, and over the decades they have grown. Not sure what they do year by year, or their total. Also this article was nominated for deletion 12 hours after it was created. Dream Focus 04:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also this article was nominated for deletion 12 hours after it was created. What is the relevance of that? The Banner talk 09:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the subject here in the article establish notability. Rather than the timing, the bigger issue is that the nominator fails to understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the obligations to identify potential sources, improve the article and preserve the content before considering deletion. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - TheMagnificentist 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that there's enough here for
WP:GNG based upon searches, but the article needs a lot of work. I'll work on it so that his notability is clearer.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per user:CaroleHenson. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just realized that this article was created for Wiki Ed/University of Pennsylvania/Medical Missionaries to Community Partners (Fall 2016), and was created first in the user's sandbox. So, I am going to stop making edits and expanding the article at this time. There is still quite a lot of content that could be added by the user that created the article - which I am assuming (and hoping) can be kept at this point due to the votes and updates to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2016 (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tadashi Miyazawa

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

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

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

Solomon Muto is the subject's sole notable role. Subject has yet to garner enough notable roles for a standalone article at this time. Delete or redirect to
Solomon Muto. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

_{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --}Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took a look at ja: wiki for this one, and saw a bunch of
noteworthy roles that includes dubbing that have not been added to the English language article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Japanese dubbing roles have been proven to be non-notable in these AFDs. As there has yet to be proof on how Japanese dubbing is important to the industry, I will continue to believe that it is non-notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing Starscream in three Transformers movies certainly quailifies as notable roles. Also KK is right about the other available sources.--Adam in MO Talk 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are said sources, and have you verified whether or not they help assert notability? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides Sengoku Basara where he's in a bunch of articles, he's got a main character role in Sinbad film trilogy.
Pupipo! [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 20 December 2016 (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 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-Ukrainian Supreme Legal Council

All-Ukrainian Supreme Legal Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Non-notable organization. There is no indication that this is a notable law organization in Ukraine. Google searches in both English and Ukrainian result in no significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: There is a Supreme Council of Justice (Вища рада юстиції) within the Ukrainian government. This present organization should not be confused with that governmental organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-Ukrainian Supreme Legal Council WikiDan61 The All-Ukrainian Supreme LEgal Council is a newly founded organization, so it's why it is Non-notable organization, yet. Our site was recently launched and it'is the reason Why Google searches are no significant coverage. Helga377

All-Ukrainian Supreme Legal Council is different from [Supreme Council of Justice]. [AUSLC] is private organization, the aim of which is to supporte lawyers, give legal advice, represent interests of individuals, to cooperate with state authorities on issues of jurisprudense an so on. [Supreme Council of Justice] is an advising judicial and control-revisionary government body in Ukraine. The Supreme Council of Justice of Ukraine advises on the appointment or release of certain judges, examines the cases of infringements, and executes disciplinary proceedings involving judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and other high specialized courts.

Wow. I really can't understand why this content might be disputed. The sources seem genuine. Please explain in further detail the negative judgement. Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About our organization in media, however it is a newly founded organization, currently I can't show you any significant coverage. But in future it will. Sincerely, Helga377, 15:44, 9 December 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps to the organization's dismay, but
the policy on guessing future notability is plainly at work here. If, in time, this organization does generate coverage, some editor will likely add it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to effectively be the bar society of Ukraine, formed in accordance with international best practice. Such organisations are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Necrothesp: I could find no indication that this organization is recognized as the bar society for Ukraine. There is a Ukrainian Bar Association which is distinct from this organization. Neither organization appears to have the same position of actually licensing lawyers that a state bar association would have in the United States. The Ukraine Disciplinary Bar Commission appears to have the power to discipline lawyers, but it does not oversee their licensing. (See Law of Ukraine.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware we were talking about the United States. Not everything has to be done as it is in the United States to be valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Obviously we're not talking about the United States. I just used that as a reference. The point is that Ukraine has no official bar association, and this organization does not have any claim to that position, contradicting your assertion that this is the (or at least an) official bar association of Ukraine. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the official bar society., and the proponents of the article admit that it's newly founded. Not yet ready for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this were the official bar society, my !vote would be different, but since it isn't than until it can meet
WP:GNG it should be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- No evidence of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2016 (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. Absence of good evidence one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Maza Jeev

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

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

I CSD nominated this per
reliable source but might be acceptable together with multiple other sources, of which there are none). bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I strongly oppose the deletion of the same the reason for the same are

1- TOI is the supreme newspaper of India and its sources are applicable for the courts of India than Wikipedia must too accept it

2- The film may not be notable to many as it is a regional film and in the East indian language which is a regional language

3- The verifiers of wikipedia lack to justify the problems in my article u may visit my draft and check its history if I make corrections the other verifier undos the same which is unfair

4- U can find sources of the film on the world wide Web or in many sites which i believe doesn't lakhs notability

As i have been repetitively saying my intentions are to expand the reach of Wikipedia to everyone its violation is my own violation so I don't entertain the same --†Ïv㉫Ǹ Ｇ✿Ǹ＄Aしv㉫＄ 09:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your good intentions are not in question even though it does look like you are ignoring the comments from multiple editors on your draft, but what you say above does not really address the main question: does the film meet
Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and as mentioned above, the city pages (as opposed to the main edition) of Times of India are usually considered to be less reliable in terms of showing notability. This is particularly true for entertainment news - and indeed, if you read this source it is rather clear that it is not particularly factual and unbiased - it reads like a rewrite of a press release from the movie makers. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Writing an article is not vandalism in any sense of the word. The deeply flawed AFC process is entirely optional and no editor should be penalized for declining to go through that ordeal. Whether to delete this article should be debated on the notability of the topic. There are legitimate claims of notability. This is the first film about the culture of the Roman Catholic East Indians and the first filmed in their own dialect. There is no basis in policy for insisting on four or five sources. I see no evidence that the Times of India coverage is a simple reprint of a press release. This Daily News and Analysis source is very good, and provides a different perspective on the film. It should be transformed from an external link into a reference. Instead of being deleted, the article should be expanded and improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is of course possible to be disruptive when it comes to article creation, but the relevant issue here (as pointed out in the nomination) is notability. The article now shows borderline notability at best; we have no actual reliable sources showing that it is the first film in East Indian Marathi (the director claims that it is in newspaper interviews but secondary sources for that kind of claim would have been useful - I might be a bit picky about this because of my profession, but that's my opinion and interpretation of
WP:RS anyway). The large audience numbers might be a stronger claim to notability; it would be good to get people who are more knowledgeable about Indian films to weigh in here. I also don't agree that the DNA India source is very good as far as coverage of the film goes - I had the same reaction when I first saw it, but then I realised that Tu Maza Jeev is only mentioned in passing. --bonadea contributions talk 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

_{Replying to the comment above} :- @Bonadea:I am extremely sure that you are not an Indian citizen, here I belong to the same community that this film is released and I have cited as many as available resources for the film u want I can send u the movie personally so that u can believe. India has 1652 languages and all have equal status according to the law and by commenting disputes u do against article 14 , 15 , 16, 21 , 25 of the Indian Constitution . By contesting u breach my Freedom of expression in India right. The film has been proved to exist as it has been on IMDB and I have seen many articles which have only one source and it has no deletion tag on it for eg Mother Teresa of Calcutta (film). My article has existence in real life and my community has witnessed it. The film had no objection on the Marathi Wikipedia and it was there created by an administrator there Mr:तू माझा जीव. My sincere request for you is please don't waste wikipedias time to tag it for deletion as it is baseless.As there is no mention that A local language film needs to prove notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that it would be helpful if we had a better source claiming that this particular film was the first one to be filmed in a specific dialect does is not in any way a comment on the existence of the dialect. I have looked it up, I know that it is an existing varity of Marathi (or, according to some, Konkani). The nationality of any of the people involved in a discussion is wholly irrelevant, and Wikipedia versions in different languages have different notability policies. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: the main problem rises that Wikipedia doesn't has the article on East Indian language I have asked an administrator about the same if he permits I'll have an article on East Indian language so it will have no doubt in the dialect u want to know. For your reference u have a look at this article and let all your doubt gets clear and u too give a green signal for my article this Christmas season 😀👍

No, the existence of this article about a movie is completely unconnected to whether East Indian Marathi exists as a separate dialect. A well-sourced article about the dialect would be excellent - as I have already said I am fully aware of its existence, and I would be happy to assist you with better sources, since the one you linked to here does not meet
Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and should not be used as a source in Wikipedia. But again that has nothing to do with the article Tu Maza Jeev. Finally, I don't decide whether any article stays or remains. The way Wikipedia deletion discussions work is like this: One editor decides to nominate an article for deletion, and provides their reasons. Other editors weigh in and agree or disagree, based on Wikipedia policy. The administrator who closes the discussion does so in accordance with the consensus in the discussion, without adding their own opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep clearly a notable subject and needed just a little more references which have been included.

It will be a net gain!
talk) 08:12, 23 December 2016 (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. (
non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Nicole Müller (linguist)

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

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

All of the sources are primary. Can find sources in Google news search about the person. Mar11 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see, as an academic, why you prefer secondary over primary sources? That seems crazy.... Is this the only thing you have against the article? It is very similar to many others on academics. Why go for delete when you can ask to have more secondary sources added?? (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added secondary sources.Meiriongwril (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar11, I didn't understand the latter part of your rationale for deletion. If you can find sources in google news then bring them here, why are you opting for deletion discussion? I came across this article while reviewing new pages, I didn't take any action then because I was able to find 1156 citations in Google Scholars Hitro talk 18:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May just pass
WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

(
#C8). There is an independent secondary source cited in the article ([9]) and we generally accept that academic biographies have to rely more on primary sources than usual. Joe Roe (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep please as the named chair is by far enough, any current concerns are not relevant enough for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gentile

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

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

Originally prodded with "Does not meet GNG, and junior volleyball players, by consensus at wp:volleyball, are not notable." Was de-prodded with the following rationale: "I believe that the page should remain, as he was a member of the Canadian junior national team, and was CIS Rookie of the Year. There are many college players in other sports who have wikipedia pages of their own, so it seems fair that volleyball players should be able as well."
WP:OSE isn't a valid rationale, and the reasons for the original prod still remain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, is there another joe gentile?,
Joe Gentile is an author and publisher, not a volleyball player. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - what the hell did I do? Obviously, this is not the article I meant to tag with AfD. This article should be tagged for lack of citations in a blp, but if the assertions in the article is correct, he seems to pass GNG. Since I didn't intend to nominate this, I withdraw this nomination. Will close it myself later, unless someone else does it first. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Productions

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

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

Can't see anything that suggests that this organisation is in any way notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete please by all means, as clear advertising for a noticeably new company with nothing at all for actual notability and substance since the information and sources themselves are trivial, and it's clear someone company-involved started it, that's all we need. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an business with no indications of notability or significance. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per
WP:Corp; not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable and promotional.
^{• speak up •} 05:04, 24 December 2016 (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. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kohei Tezuka

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that Tezuka had played in the Japanese top flight this year. This assertion is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to Tezuka's Soccerway profile, he was named to the roster once in 2016, but remained on the bench for the entire match; he has no other senior football experience. Merely being named to the roster, even for the senior national team, is not enough to meet
WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Suggestion to userfy-I'm seeing a lot of these prods on the author's userpage, and looking at their 5 year edit history, Japanese football is their bread-and-butter. Japanese football is growing and becoming a "thing" in the 9 years I've lived here. Why not userfy instead, as many of these up-and-comers may come up someday and the wheel won't need reinvented? Just my 2 yen.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jkudlick's reasoning Spiderone 13:32, 24 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water Sports (video game)

Water Sports (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability, no sources, and just about no content than two lead sentences. Neither company connected to the game is notable as well, and the currently remaining ashes resulted from an originally biased-written article.
✉) 15:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article may barely skate by GNG as there are [10] and [11] reviews, but given the game's lack of any real impact and abysmal reviews as shovelware, I think it exists best as a data point in List of Wii games. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see if there are other sources, but "abysmal reviews" aren't a justification for deletion. Neither is "real impact". --Izno (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without other sources being found, I consider this game an edge case for the GNG, and so am taking into consideration its impact as a video game to determine its notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks
video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd redirect to the parent developer article, but I think it's going to be deleted. czar 07:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memosnag

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

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

Fails
WP:NSOFT. Sources are either stores, lists of apps, or a passing mention as an example of an app in a given category. PGWG (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A
WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete every app does not get their own article. This one has no in-depth coverage, and at least would be way too soon. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ally_Burguieres

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ally Burguieres (2nd nomination)

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

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

Not notable Bls119 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and while I'm not sure why this was listed as "education" when it clearly is not, there's still nothing here at all for any conceivable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject shows no signs of notability as an artist or writer, or academic whatsoever. I also have additional concerns about dubious or absent sourcing: I'm having difficulties verifying that Queen's University grants PhDs in Media Arts and that one can take courses in Media Studies at Tulane University. The only source for her education, inthenola, calls her "a Ph.D. Professor of Media Arts". Well, no, She's an adjunct lecturer, according to the university's website. Purely promotional puffpiece.
talk) 21:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. More specifically from this link (not a reliable source, but suggestive) she was an adjunct lecturer in Tulane's school of continuing studies, not in any kind of art department. So academic notability is clearly not happening. The better question is whether she passes
WP:ARTIST. The only thing we have that looks relevant for this is a design being selected by the super bowl (whatever that means) with only a youtube video as source. That's clearly not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I am not finding enough to establish
WP:ARTIST. Of the items in the press, most deal with a copyright dispute with Taylor Swift over her use of a fox that Burguieres says was her design.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject is most likely WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Hour with Bob

An Hour with Bob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches, this television show does not meet
WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability and significant coverage. --
Wikipedical (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Venturini

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

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

Per several source searches, this television personality does not meet
WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability and significant coverage. --
Wikipedical (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing strategy

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

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

I think this article needs a dose of
WP:SYN and advertorial. It's been flagged as needing a complete rewrite for over seven and a half years. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Marketing Strategy is a course in business schools and there are numerous textbooks about it, building upon vast literature of academic and practitioner articles. No need to remove the article. The article properly cites major good sources such as David Aaker (who is an academic leader in this area). Too bad we don't have a huge number of editors interested and capable in continual development of business topics, but that's no reason to throw away what we have. And don't make threats just to force cleanup.
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 02:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our
disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and it's quite common, something we will find for sufficient improvements and that's enough to currently consider. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

England under-19 cricket team in India in 2016–17

England under-19 cricket team in India in 2016–17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Team is not notable per
WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 13:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per concerns raised at WT:CRIC about the notability of the players and the tour. This doesn't meet the requirements as it's not a top-level set of matches (IE they will not have first-class or List A status). Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable sporting event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam School

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gautam School

Articles for deletion/Gautam School (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Gautam School (3rd nomination)

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

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

No proof that the school is the best in the region and no sources. Domdeparis (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a secondary school that exists. See
wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sure, strike the sentence about it being best, like we strike similar in every school article when such gets added. Put a little effort into developing articles on rock-solid topics like this instead of trying to force others to. --do ncr am 02:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment why are there two afds running for this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautam School. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Merge the two AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a secondary school. It exists. It is notable. Merge the two AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2016 (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. Seeing as offline sources and sources used in the article appear to work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Nigerian cinema

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

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

The leading reference for the term "golden age of Nigerian cinema" is Wikipedia. My friend Mr. Google turns up 15 hits for the text as quoted, mostly mirrors. Widening it slightly gives only one thing that might qualify as establishing this as a thing, this from Al Jazeera, which does not properly support the term. I have to conclude this is a neologism or
WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, this article is not a stand alone topic on its own, but rather a
spin-off for the article: Cinema of Nigeria. The "Golden Age" is a fluid term used to describe a specific period in Nigerian cinema history and it has been used in several books and journals to describe the said period: 1, 2, 3, 4, and oh, the aljazeera article was clearly talking about this same period, so it actually "properly supports" the term! While the term is not popular (which is expected, since it's about history), its usage for this article is indeed justified. If you feel the title misrepresents the topic (which I don't think it does), maybe you can suggest a better title or make a move request.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep:
Many Google hits is not a sufficient criteria for notability. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information and if reliable sources are available to this effect, then the article is good to go. Fact: There are some notable articles with encyclopedic content which have reliable sources that you may not find online. I only just realized that the very sources I added to validate the information in this article have already been listed here by the creator! Eruditescholar (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep: The sources cited in the article shows that the term is suitable for stand-alone inclusion. The term has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Although it is not required to have a stand-alone page, I feel like Jamie Tubers' decision to create said page is sound to say the least. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Alam Antlers F.C.

Shah Alam Antlers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Newly-formed football club fails
WP:ORGDEPTH. The only reference I found merely confirms their existence. - Mr X 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no indication the club has received significant coverage, or meets
WP:FOOTYN. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of meeting the required standards currently; at best, a case of
WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 09:36, 21 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverfox

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

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

No notable company as per Wikipedia policy and borders on advertisement. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 06:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week Detele Seems notable as per media. Got funded and possible new in Fintech domian. Might be kept for future. else delete is not a bad option for now. Writing of this article is definitely promotional and reads like an advertising or press. might be written by close associates. just a thought! Light2021 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Article does not cite any notable references from authoritative sources. Most of the links are for routine news articles from Economic Times/Indiatimes which are re-dressed press releases. Not a single article tells about the company and what it does and how it has impacted the industry it is in. This raises serious questions on The company's Notability.C. Harris (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep Notability shouldn't be a matter of question here. Ample stories were found online - both about the company and about the company associates. I agree with Light2021, 'it is a possible new in the fintech domain and could be kept for future'. I actually found several more in the Fintech space - Bankbazaar and Policybazaar have been around for quite sometime. I must say, a lot can be done about their pages too. I'm honestly very excited to be a part of Wikipedia fraternity and make my contributions. I can help improve the writing for this one. The Recent activities section is a little promotional. I'm concerned how one could talk about this company's impact in the industry at a platform like Wikipedia. Such information is mostly editorial based and should be avoided as per Wikipedia writing guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.NidhiRana (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; the content is strictly advertorial with typical sections such as "Accolades and Mentions", "Recent Activities" etc. This content belongs on a company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete article is promotional in content (and only subtly hidden at that). Fails
WP:NOTPROMO. Everyone on this AfD agrees that the content is currently promotional. If it is a notable topic, another editor should be able to recreate it again without the promotional content. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam School

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

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

Fails
Wp:NHS but leak sources. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 11:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom but not sure what leak sources means. Domdeparis (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are there two afds running for this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautam School (2nd nomination). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Merge the two AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at the other AfD that is consecutively running somehow. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2016 (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. Salting can be requested at
WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Jack and Cocaine

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

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

This is one of two film articles that was created in order to make
WP:NFILM
.
This was originally a PROD by
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I also recommend salting this to prevent further recreation, given that there was an attempt to recreate the article for Hovey only hours after the first AfD.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Repeating my PROD nomination: Non-notable film. Meets neither
independent source. Largoplazo (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete definitely not notable, virtually no coverage aside from passing mentions and promo material. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

I also want to note that I've listed his other film
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 20 December 2016 (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 by Cerebellum. (non-admin closure)—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Games B.V.

Phoenix Games B.V. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable video game publisher with practically no coverage from reputable news outlets apart from an article or two by Games Asylum. Any mention of it is often on user-edited wikis, blogs or sites which are often about the notoriety they earned amongst the gaming community, but even then the company is largely overlooked by the likes of Kotaku due to their low-profile business model. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 applied Clear rounding of the many deletion decisions using the "B.V." abbreviation under the title
chatter) 23:28, 16 December 2016 (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Heliconia (disambiguation)

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

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

Without the
primary topic and one other potentially ambiguous article. The hatnote already at the primary topic takes care of the disambiguation admirably; this page is not needed. — Gorthian (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment )I would say the hatnote would need to go to the municipality and to the very similar Helliconia. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at a minimum three articles:
intitle}} will lose them amid all the Heliconia species. Heliconia (disambiguation) is also linked as a see-also from Helicon (disambiguation) jnestorius^(talk) 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Heliconia Press (which I've just added) seems worth an entry per
WP:PTM but has a good place here on the dab page. PamD 11:27, 18 December 2016 (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 deleted in accordance with
WP:CSD#G4 and salted. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kash Hovey

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kash Hovey

Articles for deletion/Kash Hovey (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Kash Hovey (producer and actor)

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

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

This article was deleted very recently on the grounds of lack of notability. The current version of the article still does not show notability. Kash Hovey has had minor roles in several movies and a TV show, and his only major role is in an indie film that has gone virtually unnoticed by the media, and is itself currently proposed for deletion. In terms of sourcing, nearly all sources are either IMDB or some type of trivial mention. The most substantial source in the article is one interview he gave to The LA Fashion. Neither the general notability guideline nor the actor notability guideline have been met. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can't see where this actor currently passes notability guidelines. I'd also recommend salting this article to prevent any further recreations. Looking at the name of the editor ~~creating~~ who first created the article, I have to assume that this is Kash Hovey or someone affiliated with him trying to add him to Wikipedia by way of this article and what looks like the start of a walled garden with the creation of articles for some of the movies he's been in,
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I nominated
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing has been added that indicates any more notability than was in the previous version of the article, and the actor didn't acquire more notability in the five minutes (only a slight exaggeration) between the deletion of the previous article and the posting of this one. Largoplazo (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as the previous discussion, does not meet notability requirements. This individual/article did not meet them 8 days ago when the discussion started or 24 hours ago when it was closed and the lack of notability remains. Also the massive
promo like material reamins. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

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 deleted. as a copyvio. (
non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Amit Praskash Mishra

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

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

Does not meet WP:Notability. JustBerry (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I tagged PROD BLP No sources. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Traralgon

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Stockland Traralgon

Articles for deletion/Stockland Traralgon (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Stockland Traralgon (3rd nomination)

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

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

Unremarkable shopping centre in a city with a population of only 25,000. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable shopping mall. Fails
WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unanimously kept last time around with listed sources that never made it into the article. Needs cleanup instead. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete even the last AfD called it incidential mentions. The coverage is primarily routine. At 50 odd shops it's very small by WP standards. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Drover's Wife. --do ncr am 01:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not a genuine !vote as per
WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The old AfD was almost five years ago, and consensus can change. I'm of the view that trivial/routine coverage in local sources about a shopping mall does not satisfy
WP:GNG. As a shopping mall, local news will cover it. The question is if the coverage is in depth and discusses it over a sustained amount of time as a topic in itself. I did not see that demonstrated at the last AfD and have not seen an argument for it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2016 (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. And I suggest opening an RFC on the notability of secondary schools; there has previously been a consensus that they are notable, so it's probably not best to re-hash the discussion on individual AfD pages but to centralise it. Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Vikash Secondary School

Bal Vikash Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - unsourced, with a search demonstrating lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. There are enough mentions on the internet to prove it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No serious content. And as Necrothesp should know, his consensus is blown up recently... The Banner talk 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, the dates need conversion from the local system to the common system. Outside of that, this is a secondary school and therefore should be kept in accordance with the longstanding consensus that secondary schools are automatically presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that consensus is recently blown up when a school-article was deleted. The Banner talk 12:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Banner, can you please link me the AfD? Thanks—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that The Banner is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi, UY Scuti. Note also some recent no-consensus secondary school closes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.E.F. Eden Garden Matriculation School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right with that. The Banner talk 23:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I've been watching this, and the one establishment of schools we've made is that we find all notable if they actually exist, although I will say sourcing has actually been hard to find here, its existence is all we still need for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with that consensus, SwisterTwister, and as noted above it hasn't necessarily been holding lately, but can I ask what independent sources verify this school's existence? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an independent source that mentions it and establishes its existence as a school [12]. Not a great source, but existence is established by an independent NGO. Again, as expressed below, English-language internet sources for high schools in South Asia are going to be more difficult to come by, but you generally can determine through some NGOs whether a school exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TonyBallioni. My response to that source is, what can we actually say in a Wikipedia article based on that source? "Bal Vikash Secondary School is a school in Nepal" is about it, I think, and I don't think that makes for a worthwhile article, so my view remains that we should delete pending more and more detailed sources being found. Otherwise, like the kept Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School, the page will just attract the addition of unsourced material, generating work for editors to keep it in a sourced but minimal and not particularly helpful state. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article currently states that the language of instruction is English. If that is correct, then I am surprised that we can't find more English-language sources about the school. Maybe it's wrong? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Cordless Larry. If you look at the concerns at the one AfD that resulted in deletion, some of the !votes were based off of the fact that editors thought you couldn't prove the school exists. That's not the case with this article. Historically, we have only required that a secondary school be proved to exist for it to be deemed notable as SwisterTwister and I have pointed out. Re: the English language point: many South Asian schools do have English as the medium of instruction (in the case of India, English is even an official language. Even with that, because the percentage of the population that speaks English is relatively small, you still have trouble finding online English sources like you could find for a US high school. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a secondary school. It exists. It is notable. If you want to challenge that consensus, start an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But your consensus is already in tatters... The Banner talk 04:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatters is a strong word here. There is not a consensus that
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is why a RfC would be a better place to deal with it than in a series of AfDs as expressed by the closer in one of the no consensus closes. As I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram, I think a lot of the issues with these schools is that foreign secondary schools are less likely to have English-language sources easily accessible online, which is part of the English Wikipedia's intrinsic bias since it is the English Wikipedia. The same amount of sources that exist for Anglophone country secondary schools likely exist, and could be found with digging. Per the existing consensus on secondary schools, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to schools in non-English-speaking countries that we give to schools in English-speaking countries. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It is indeed a bias to believe that schools are notable as soon as you can prove that they exist. The Banner talk 11:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anas al-Basha

Anas al-Basha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a case of
WP:ONEEVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe that to be the case, and since it won't be possible to merge it with other articles documenting the events (such as Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)), it should be deleted. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: tragic situation, but I don't believe it meets notability requirements for a stand alone article. Coverage seems to relate just to the single event of the person's death. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African American Evolution in media

African American Evolution in media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One source which is unrelated. I found this on uncategorizedpages. (Speaking of uncategorizedpages, why do we need the uncategorized tag when there's already a special page?) KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
talk) 03:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Plain old Delete I wouldn't even merge this to Representation of African Americans in media. It looks fairly unsalvageable to me. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced essay, not an encyclopedia article. There's nothing worth merging here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can barely discern what the article is about, but I suppose it's something like "Evolution of representation of African Americans in the media". The title makes no sense at all, does not represent the content of the article and is not a suitable encyclopedic topic. The article itself is an irredeemable mess.
talk) 21:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I agree that there is nothing worth merging here at all; just original research with no value to Wikipedia Spiderone 09:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Ryan

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

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

Delete: non-notable New Zealand TV/radio presenter. Quis separabit? 02:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Because she does not show global notability guidelines, not a notable person, neither Shiesmine (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable; fails
WP:GNG. J 947 19:21, 20 December 2016 (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 A7. Peridon (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefflon Don

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}

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

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

Artist (rapper) who fails
WP:ARTIST. scope_creep (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete, fails db-person - no credible assertion of notability. PK T(alk) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_December_16&oldid=1142223730"