Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 December	1 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Development Studio LLC

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

Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Cites are to web content generated by the company itself or lists of companies/products. No third party reliable source discussion of company. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 09:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per nom, the only claim to notability is a possibly notable product and as per
WP:PRODUCT guidelines "...that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." Domdeparis (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Nom. Only claim to notability is the product. -- Dane ^talk 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Smigly

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

This biography is being written in different languages probably using translators and probably by same person. Being a winner of Math Olympics was never a criteria to be considered relevant. It is just something a student can do and not enough to well covered by sources. —Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 21:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Zero evidence of impact in GS. WP:Too soon, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a non-notable mathematician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have occasionally kept articles on the basis of an unusually large number of IMO gold medals. But that's not what we have here. In fact, the IMO results page given on the article as a reference for his participation doesn't even list his name. And there seems to be nothing else that could justify notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this BLP a hoax? Sources seem so elusive. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- This source looks real enough to convince me that it's not a hoax. (It's not enough for notability, though.) It appears to be part of a series of articles published by the mathematics department at a Brazilian university, many of which are about their national mathematics olympiad. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Johnson Bros Tours

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

Non-notable (local rather than national) bus company. Of the sources provided, one is

^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as per nom - Fails NOTTRAVEL, NCORP & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 10:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of A roads in Suffolk

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

The list is lacks any notability and simply reproduces the road lists within Wikipedia. See:

talk) 20:20, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of A & B roads in Rutland

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

The list is lacks any notability and simply reproduces the road lists within Wikipedia. See:

talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment This is a road list within Wikipedia. Do you mean think this is somewhere else, where the road list has been replicated to? Exactly what is a copy of what. --doncram 04:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nom is referring to the fact that we already have lists of A and B roads per numbering scheme zone (see
  WP:G7 in some manner? "Pepper" @ 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's difficult to see why anyone would want a list of roads organised by county.Rathfelder (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and just plain redundant.Charles (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per
WP:NOTDIR. -- Dane ^talk 10:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Soulscraper. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elenor Rayner

)

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

Fails

talk, contribs) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Seems to fail
WP:Notability (musicians). Not every artist is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Do no delete. Whilst she may fall short of
WP:PRESERVE this. Someone may be able to access and evaluate the offline sources. Instead of nominating this the nominator could have joined in the current talk page discussion were there is a developing consensus for merge/redirect, or could have boldly done the redirect themselves. (Disclosing that I started this article). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Soulscraper per duffbeerforme. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soulscraper since she is not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulscraper per Duffbeerforme. -- Dane ^talk 10:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulscraper. Member of a notable pop group, but not notable independently. Edwardx (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International record by England in Home Grounds

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

Needless

reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and
WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia does not need to duplicate Cricinfo. IgnorantArmies (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:LISTCRUFT summarises it very well. In addition, the title is hopelessly ambiguous and meaningless. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - simply a list of stuff that is from somewhere else and would be best referred to in a summary section on the article about the team or the ECB. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons put forward by everyone else above. Unnecessary. Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. --
old fashioned! 15:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, although if this particular home ground advantage is in any way notable (I don't know Cricket), a merge alternative could be to summarize this entire article if one is willing to do the math in a spreadsheet, and add a section to Home advantage called "Notable examples", and say something like "England's home ground advantage in Cricket, as of January 2017, is a winning percentage of xx%." Then other notable examples could be added, such as Denver's, with their high altitude advantage.Timtempleton (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Football Alliance

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

Fails

WP:NSPORTS that gets it past notability either. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep I see enough Gnews coverage that I believe this semi-pro Florida league merits an article per
talk) 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Broad coverage isn't what gets past GNG, significant coverage does. Shallow coverage isn't what we need. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ORGCRITE also says "significant" coverage. ORGDEPTH exempts "the season schedule or final score from sporting events" and says "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements...". I'd submit that covering the fact that a game was played and telling us what happened in the game is merely a routine announcement. The article is an unsourced paragraph, followed by a line from a press release and then little more than coverage of games and their outcomes. There's no discussion of the organization itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." I still maintain that a honest and impartial survey of the Gnews results reveals more than that "a game was played" -- as you continue to mischaracterize it. Not vastly more, but more, enough that !vote remains as it is.
talk) 03:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Will you be making the addition of those sources? I'm not sure why you felt the need to say an "honest" survey....seems like an implication being made. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not be adding the sources. Afd is not cleanup.
talk) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

That's one of my favorite parts of AfD. Keep !votes based on the claim that there are sources, but never actually gathering those sources and adding them in to make the article worth keeping. (Just being "honest" since you seem to imply otherwise) Or in this case, even producing them, just saying that they're out there. So keep for ORGDEPTH, but don't actually show that is passes ORGDEPTH? Got it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided pass
Do not confuse stub status with non-notability covers some of the arguments worth reviewing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Which sources do you feel do that? Aside from the press release used as a source, the articles from 3rd parties are recaps of games, not the org. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets
WP:ORGDEPTH narrowly. -- Dane ^talk 10:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cerebellum (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squat Theatre Book

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

Fails

WP:NBOOK. No sign of significant coverage, either in article or found via Google search. Worldcat says only 19 libraries have a copy. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

"A book that meets either the general notability guideline OR the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article."From general notability page of which IF a work falls under "is presumed to merit an article.'": ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The book falls under Significant Coverage thus in

WP:GNG

. Wikipedia says nothing in regards "Google search."ovA_165443 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've found no sign of "significant coverage", and the sort of footnote quotes you listed on the article talk page does not reach that standard. Can you point to some significant coverage? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I noticed on Talk:Squat Theatre Book that the author believes being cited few times makes the work notable. As can be seen from the cited NBOOK policy, this is not the case. Since we cannot find any reviews that would mean the book was noticed by independent sources, there is nothing to warrant keeping this. Unencyclopedic topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the Squat Theatre Book in the Squat Theatre Article and remove this page. Thank You! ovA_165443 14:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G7. Author has requested deletion here, blanked the page twice, and there are no other substantial contributors. I've restored the blanked page a second time, but I don't really think we need to go through the motions here. Adding the G7 tag in a sec. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vampire Princess Miyu#Shinma. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinma

)

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

This article appears to be a list of monster of the week from Vampire Princess Miyu. No sources or sign of notability. The series doesn't even have a separate list for it's "main" characters so I'm finding it hard to see a justification for this list.

I suspect part of the problem is that the article dates from 2007 and aside from a few isolated bulk edits it's largely been untouched. Therefore this is a relic that should have been dealt with a long time ago. Yes, AFD is not cleanup and we are not time limited but clearly time has not been beneficial to this article for 9 years.It's an unlikely search term and unless someone with a better knowledge of the series has a different opinion I don't see any scope for improvement or use as a merge or redirect SephyTheThird (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. It was originally started to list every known Shinma in Vampire Prince Miyu since nobody had established a detailed Shinma section when the anime's page was first created. It would still be a good information for anyone wanting to know more about the Shinma. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has no real chance of surviving here, I did a full history import to the Manga Wikia. [1] Dream Focus 19:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place
reliable sources, there is not enough coverage just for a standalone article on these "Shinmas". Opencooper (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Are you saying we should transfer the Shinma info to the main page with brief information about them? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I wouldn't mind a redirect but merging would require picking only major monsters or giving an overview. Opencooper (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There aren't any major shinma to merge from this list. The ones that are major are already listed on the main page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vampire Princess Miyu#Shinma. The list is completely unsourced, but the term is specific to the Vampire Princess Miyu so it can become a single paragraph and be summarized as monster of the week. None of the Shinma need their own separate entry, and those who are recurring characters already have their own entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vampire Princess Miyu#Shinma. I agree with Angus that a summary of the main characters can be summed up here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 10:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Grimanov

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

I am not able to determine if this is a real soccer player or if this whole article is an elaborate hoax. A Google search on the name returns only Wikipedia mirrors and the given sources are not really helpful, when they even work. If somebody can find a reliable source demonstrating that this is a real player and he satisfies

WP:NFOOTY, I will be happy to withdraw this AfD. Safiel (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I think its a hoax. I checked the rooster (past and present) of Spartak Moscow for players with his data but there is nobody with this name, birthdate or the other data from article. Number 34 is worn by a different player. No database seems to have this player and the links in the article are all "broken". He is definitely not on the first team, especially not with this age and all sources which list the players of this major soccer club do not mention him. I also checked the other teams (team 2 and reserve) of the club if there is someone with the name (its on their webpage), but couldn't find him. I therefore think this can be deleted per WP:HOAX and WP:V. Dead Mary (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a hoax. A 15 year old goalkeeper playing in the top division in Russia would be garnering huge amounts of press, especially given the claim of the page that he's actually scored twice as well. However, there's barely any search results for the player, the most of which are simply mirror sites of this page, and none of the references included actually seem to work. Kosack (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax Spiderone 13:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax. None of the sources cited in article actually mention him. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since consensus has developed pretty quickly that this is a hoax, I will tag the article with the hoax maintenance tag, pending deletion at the end of this AfD. Safiel (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue,

WP:MFD is thataway →. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Draft:El Poppo De Milkins

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

no references, also appears to be something made up. KoshVorlon 16:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you know Mr Milkins personally? And it's also a very young page, don't shoot something down before giving it a chance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt5 add (talk • contribs) moved by Samtar

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. Clearly notable per

WP:FOOTYN, especially the achievements of the women's team. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Zwart-Wit '28

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

Amateur football clubs are generally non-notable, fails

WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Where shall I start? I have a lot to say on this AfD. Let me put this in a few bullet points with individual signatures, so folks can argue any point they wish to discuss. In other words, the rationale for keeping is below. In this section I am limiting myself to the form. The "speedy" is part of the form. I'm speedying because I believe that the AfD was proposed in error, as many sources and facts (I'll detail below) were still missing. In "speedy keep" the noun is keep, so that is the important part of my opinion. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While amateur football may be generally non-notable, Netherlands is among many nations that stretches or has stretched the definitions of amateur football in order to perform better in more and less important international venues, including the
  Hoofdklasse and divisions above, that it still considers "amateur", are salaried. The better players are salaried also in divisions below the Hoofdklasse. In other words, while this statement may be correct it should not be leading us in any way, because we'd introduce sports fraud into our decision making. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- How are these generalized statements relevant to Zwart-Wit '28? The club couldn't pay the salaries to which it had contractually committed itself in the
  Hoofdklasse (as all other wink wink amateur clubs in this section) and went bankrupt. Amateurism? Maybe in management but clubs at this level do not often go bankrupt. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Zwart-Wit '28 won the national KNVB Women's Cup of the Netherlands, among all Dutch clubs. Not among quote unquote amateur clubs. So however you turn it, the notability of Zwart-Wit '28 transcends that even of supposed (faked) amateurism because it won one of the highest national honors in soccer, independent of its classification. Surely nobody wants to claim that women's soccer is free of merit and notability? Supporting this AfD is supporting that ridiculous idea! gidonb (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The notion that the club fails
  WP:GNG is plainly false. The club has had major, independent, and verifiable coverage in all national media. Most of this wasn't there at the time of nomination and there is so much more to add. Especially well covered were the national amateur championship for men, the national cup for all women, and the bankruptcy beats all with lengthy articles on the rise and fall of the "Feyenoord of Saturday Soccer". While I cannot spend all day today on improving the article, I will add more in the days to come. I am adding this information here (in the article would have been better) least folks start digging in on opinions based on imprecise statements in the nomination. I'm not criticizing the nominator. Much of the information wasn't and still isn't there so I'll take any and all blame myself. To the nominator I propose withdrawing this baseless AfD. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment
WP:VENUE would be elsewhere. Not here! gidonb (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Our policy is very clear on this topic: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet
WP:N guidelines and it should be speedy closed or withdrawn! gidonb (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - playing (and winning!) the Hoofdklasse is sufficient, it's the top-level of amateur football in the Netherlands and quite famous. Giant Snowman 10:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a well written article with references from reputable sources, they have played in the third tier and have a rich history in Dutch football. The article could be improved upon, with an infobox for example and maybe some rewriting, but otherwise I think this article should stay. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
- Subzzee, thank you for the warm words. At your suggestion, I have added an infobox. gidonb (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jauch Quartz GmbH

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Almost all primary or non-independent sourcing. Promotional article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company which the
WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

Texas Instruments TMS320. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

TMS320C8x

)

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

No legitimate claim to notability. While this product is used in many commercial products, it is not notable in itself. Also,

WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
Texas Instruments TMS320 where it is mentioned (and remove the circular link that will be created). MB 03:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Texas Instruments TMS320 as MB suggests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Xanth characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magician Trent

)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsourced, and fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with List of Xanth characters after restructuring that article. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but as a major character in a long-running series, the content would fit well in a character list. I can do the merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

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

This defunct

unreliable sources (I'm looking at you Henry H. Bauer). jps (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per arguments in
WP:JOURNALCRIT, criterion 3. St Anselm (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Since there is only one source that (minimally) attests to this, this is not a good argument. In fact, it seems that it may be an argument for deletion owing to not aligning with
WP:FRINGE notability guidelines as a fringe journal. jps (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If I'm reading the past deletion discussions correctly this is the 3rd time, under a 3rd account you've nominated this article for deletion over the course of 10 years. Are there new arguments? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are not enough
WP:FRIND
-compliant sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete If there is only a single source that is not enough to establish notability. Can someone convince me by providing a list of the RS that have covered this please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find the following independent reliable sources. I've included Bauer on the following grounds that (a) reviews of the book are generally good (b) his views on Aids are irrelevant to his book on Velikovskianism, otherwise we'd have to question
guidelines as no part of the article includes the banned subjects, another admin thought that it did, but let it go[2]. I also need to declare a potential conflict of interest, as I sell access to the contents of this periodical via my website catastrophism.com, though I have never made a profit, and it makes no difference to the sources provided. --Iantresman (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Donald Goldsmith, Isaac Asimov, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, "Introduction", publ. 1979, W. W. Norton & Company. Page 21 etc (see)
Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, Publ. 1999 University of Illinois Press, 354 pages
ISBN 0252068459 ([3]
)

Scott McLemee, "Catastrophe Theory (Review of Michael D. Gordin, "The Pseudoscience Wars", in Inside Higher Ed, February 6, 2013
"Velikovsky: AAAS Forum for a Mild Collision (News and Comment", Science 15 Mar 1974: Vol. 183, Issue 4129, pp. 1059-1062
Michael D. Gordin, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, "Chapter 6: Strangest Bedfellows", University of Chicago Press, 2012 (Amazon) Numerous mentions
Laird Scranton, The V--Iantresman (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)elikovsky Heresies: Worlds in Collision, Publ. 2012 Bear & Company (Amazon)[reply]

There are also these mentioned by Green Cardamom in a previous AfD, though I have weeded out incidental mentions:

James Gilbert, Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science University of Chicago Press, 2008
"The AAAS Debate", The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: Volume One], ABC-CLIO, 2002

I would reject Bauer out-of-hand as he seems to make common cause with pseudoscience and the book he wrote about Velikovsky, while better than others, does not rise to the level I would like to see in a reliable source. He is too credulous when it comes to obviously incorrect claims such as those offered by Velikovsky. Other than the Gordin source, all the rest of the truly close to

WP:FRIND sources are just offering passing mention. jps (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The Science magazine source includes background information on Pensée, and I believe establishes historical context per

WP:JOURNALCRIT. Goldsmith has at least a dozen mentions, most of which are in the body of the text. Bauer has at least 40, most in the text. A check of reviews of Bauer's book are nearly all positive, and the preface (page xii) of his book indicates that he had several people review his text before publication, including Ellenberger who is considered an expert in the field, and was used by Gordin. --Iantresman (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Bauer, I think, we must consider separately as I am not convinced his pseudoscience proclivities make him a

independent enough source for establishing notability. The News and Comment section of Science does not seem to mention this journal in a serious way. Quotes of what you were referring to might be good. jps (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Surely you and I don't need to be convinced about Bauer, we just need some sources to support the your view. I am not dismissing them, only saying that we should be guided by

WP:TALK#FACTS. I have seen many sources that are happy with Bauer, I think we need to see some of those that don't. --Iantresman (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the

WP:REDFLAG. I haven't seen a single source about his book on Velikovsky that acknowledges his pseudoscientific proclivities. Problematic. jps (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That's good to know, and suggests that we do not need to consider it per

WP:NOTFORUM, so no problem. We must have sources that share your insight. --Iantresman (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, if you can find a source that deals with Bauer's pseudoscience advocacy while discussing his work on Velikovsky, that would be appreciated. However, the point is that you don't look for sources that make the point that a source is bad. When you identify a poor source, you look for sources that can contextualize it. Then you can use it. But as it is, we are trying to decide which sources speak to the notability of this particular magazine. In this case, we would want to find sources written by people who are not inveterate pseudoscience promoters. jps (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- really this and Kronos should be considered together. Velikovsky's views are rubbish, but they have eben much discussed, so that discussion forums ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion forums are notable? I'm sorry, I don't understand this argument. We are looking at a magazine here. jps (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and / or redirect to Immanuel Velikovsky; I believe the topic is adequately covered there. No need for a more in-depth discussion on the fringe topic under consideration. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With no prejudice against a redirect if a talk page discussion wants one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bagiswori College

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

Other than the current reference provided (the college's webpage) there are no RS to confirm its existence. Meatsgains (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tribhuvan University. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 09:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 09:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep post-secondary institution that exists and awards degrees. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as we never delete degree-awarding schools and this is a clear case of it. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. to Tribhuvan Uni per
WP:RS. Totally not notable and no RS found. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Tribhuvan University. Degree awarding institution does not get deleted. -- Dane ^talk 10:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet
WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Nepal institutions because, unlike their US equivalents for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, many do not have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. Just Chilling (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A redirect to Keynesian economics may be the right solution; this discussion can continue on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demand-side economics

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

WP:SYNTH. If the article was about "demand-side economics" as it's used rhetorically, it would discuss that, rather than try to weave together some kind of economic policy stance from a variety of sources. WeakTrain (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that I look at other AfDs, I realize my original comment is quite long. Apologies, this is my first attempt. WeakTrain (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion - There is no other page for the policy of demand side economic management, despite that being a dominant policy for many governments. While in practice, Keynesians usually advocate demand side stimulus, in theory, Keynesian economics is about deficit management, and economic stimulation can be achieved either on the demand side, through government spending, or on the supply side, through tax rate or tax revenue reduction; for this reason, the Keynesian economics pages are not appropriate for this material. Since demand side management is a major economic policy orientation, Wikipedia should cover it, so this article is needed. If the name of the article is the issue, we could maybe find some other name for it, though this name seems adequately descriptive to me.Warren Dew (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WeakTrain (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC) WeakTrain (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The article should be expanded rather than being deleted. Though it doesn't have the colorful history of supply-side economics, demand-side economics are used all the time. Cash for clunkers is demand-side, bonus depreciation on capital expenditures is demand-side and most recently, the lowering of interest rates by banks around the world to near 0%, and sometimes less than zero, is demand-side economic policy. Lipsquid (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage in
WP:DICTDEF, which is all that really matters for AfD standards. Whether it is a "rhetorical flourish" or an actual hypothesis is besides the point here and a matter for the article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Keynesian economics - "demand-side economics" is used commonly as a synonym of Keynesian economics. One may argue that it is not strictly correct (the Keynesian view is that when the aggregate demand is low then the government should run deficits to compensate for it, but not in any circumstance, see e.g. File:Economic_Policy_-_Intervention_Strategy_Matrix.png), but that's the way it is used. Since the Keynesian article is much better/older, a redirect seems in order. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Nutritional Therapy

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

Article is promotional in nature and serves only to advertise a non-notable 'treatment', devised in 2016 by http://www.restorebalancethrive.com. Article creator may be associated with the company. References only support medical statements not related to the article subject, and none provide any evidence of notability. Speedy Deletion tag was previously added and removed by creator, but content has not significantly changed to justify retention.

talk) 13:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. This is a non-notable subject. There are reliable sources used as references, but those are not about the subject of the article. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The article creator, of course, has no right to remove a speedy tag. I've issued a warning.
talk) 14:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete promotional and FRINGE. Fails GNG; sources are about other things for the most part. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quscient Technologies

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

There are hardly any reliable sources about this company. The only source I found was about a conflict between 2 employees but nothing much about the company. This is not enough to satisfy

WP:CORPIND. Accordingly, this should be deleted. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional piece on an unremarkable business. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. Insufficient coverage to meet
WP:NCORP MB 03:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: An article primarily by a
notability. AllyD (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted after my tag (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aluma Shield

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

This was originally prodded by

WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom, Boleyn (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Insufficient coverage to meet
WP:NCORP. MB 03:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Clavin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Cliff Clavin

)

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

Non-notable band; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing

Wikipedical (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Not independently notable, plus lacks sourcing. At best, redirect to Chris Clavin, although I'm not even convinced that person should have a wikipedia page due to lack of sourcing. It must have been created and slipped through the cracks back in the old days when Wikipedia had very lax criteria for WP:MUSICIANS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy redirect to Chris Clavin, and let info about the band spin out summary style. As for whether the individual is notable, there are additional sources on its talk page. czar 04:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Czar's suggestion. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:13, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Stefano Grand Plaza

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

This article does not meat

WP:GNG as the only link is the official website Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's the architect's page. I can't find any notable independent coverage at all.
talk) 18:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

If you do a Gnews search for the Arabic name, you can find at least one rather spammy article like this. There may well be more Arabic coverage, readable for most of us via Google Translate or Chrome's built in translator...
talk) 18:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep, and then probably merge with San Stefano (neighborhood) to create an article that discusses the neighborhood as well as the current development. Searches yield some substantive coverage about this hotel-apartment-mall complex and the historic neighborhood where it sits, once the home of a famous casino also called San Stefano. The current hotel is in the tallest building in the city. [5][6][7] It appears to me that taken as a whole the complex is at least sufficiently notable to warrant a brief description in an article that covers the area. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of plaza's that don't have their own Wikipedia article. That is because they are not notable. This one is not different. Grammarphile (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping mall-related deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this was previously nominated for deletion, although that fact doesn't seem to have been mentioned on the AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Hotel Atlanta. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with option to merge, but that depends on someone willing to do the work. [8] shows that the mall has 180 retail outlets. The ISCS indicates that a regional mall has 40-80 stores. The mall, of course, is only one part of this complex. Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that each of the three interlanguage wikis have information not present here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" !votes are weak and provide no evidence for their position, but there are not enough "delete" !votes for a

quorum. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sani Konukoğlu Boulevard

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

Non-notable road per

WP:GNG. It is unreferenced, and I can't find any significant coverage of it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no media coverage.StudiesWorld (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article from its current form. See
WP:BEFORE. Devopam (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Devopam: Before nominating, I did try to find sources to establish notability, but failed, as mentioned in my nomination statement. No amount of article improvements can establish notability. Have you had better luck in establishing notability? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major thoroughfare in a major city. That's notability enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Is there a specific exemption to GNG that you are referring to? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If users knowledgeable about the local area say it is major, I say let it be kept. But anyhow, merging/redirecting to
State road D400 (Turkey) does not link to this article. --do ncr am 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 31 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. No consensus for a specific outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LocalBitcoins

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

Seems to fail

WP:CORPSPAM that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) ([reply

]

Keep: LocalBitcoins was significant subject of an article in a well-established news organization (business insider). It's also been covered as primary subject matter in less-established "trade rags". Here it's the primary subject of an article in a non-bitcoin industry publication. Here's substantial coverage in Ars Technica. It also gets peripheral mention quite regularly in articles from well-established organizations such as The Guardian Sputnik News and Bloomberg. Those are just from the last few weeks. There's an older mention of the company in the gold standard NY Times Chris Arnesen 20:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in
reliable sources
.
1. Berkman, Fran (2014-04-17). "LocalBitcoins exchange confirms security breach, stolen bitcoins". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  LocalBitcoins, a decentralized Bitcoin exchange with more than 100,000 users, confirmed reports of a security breach after multiple users complained their digital cash had vanished.
  ...
  Unlike most Bitcoin exchanges, which facilitate fully online transactions, LocalBitcoins matches buyers and sellers by geographical location for face-to-face exchanges of cash for Bitcoins. The company's 110,000 active traders make it the largest decentralized market in the world, according to ArcticStartup.
2. Knibbs, Kate (2015-02-05). "Meet the Street Dealers Who Peddle Bitcoin". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  I'd arranged this meeting through LocalBitcoins.com, a Bitcoin marketplace that's not unlike a cryptocurrency Craigslist. People who want to sell Bitcoin post advertisements, and buyers message them to arrange a transfer. The Helsinki-based marketplace started in 2012, but there are people using it to buy and sell all over the world. (Though not in Germany, where it's been blocked for regulatory reasons.)
3. Mizrahi, Avi (2016-09-13). "Russia's National Censor Blocks Access to LocalBitcoins. LocalBitcoins responded to the ban by instructing Russian users on how to bypass the censorship". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  If you are not familiar with LocalBitcoins, it is a service where people from different countries can exchange their local currency to bitcoin. The site allows users to post the exchange rate and payment methods they want for buying or selling bitcoin. Anyone can reply and agree to meet to buy or sell bitcoin with cash, or trade directly with online banking. Funds are placed in LocalBitcoins’ web wallet from where the buyer can pay for purchases directly.
  It should be noted the Russia isn't the only jurisdiction in which LocalBitcoins have run into trouble with regulations. For example, in 2015 LocalBitcoins left New York over its BitLicense program and in 2014 it halted service in Germany after being contacted by BaFin (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht), the country’s financial supervisory authority, also apparently on the matter of licensing.
4. Wile, Rob (2014-02-09). "Another Major Bitcoin Exchange May Be Under Threat". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  LocalBitcoins.com allows users to trade Bitcoin in person by finding the address of buyers and sellers closest to your physical address. That might seem like no anonymity is involved, but in practice actual addresses are never revealed, many transactions occur online, and if the two parties do meet in person, they usually don't ask each other's names. As of December, the site was seeing up to 3,000 Bitcoins traded a day.
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow LocalBitcoins to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and here's why:

The first link is from a website whose column was simply for business reports, they mean nothing exactly as how a local business journal would publish their own localities for businesses and investors.

LocalBitcoins.com allows users to trade Bitcoin in person by finding the address of buyers and sellers closest to your physical address. That might seem like no anonymity is involved, but in practice actual addresses are never revealed, many transactions occur online, and if the two parties do meet in person, they usually don't ask each other's names. As of December, the site was seeing up to 3,000 Bitcoins traded a day. (Itself is a press release since violates WP:GUIDE as it, not only works as a business guide, but it states the company's own financials)
If you are not familiar with LocalBitcoins, it is a service where people from different countries can exchange their local currency to bitcoin. The site allows users to post the exchange rate and payment methods they want for buying or selling bitcoin. Anyone can reply and agree to meet to buy or sell bitcoin with cash, or trade directly with online banking. Funds are placed in LocalBitcoins’ web wallet from where the buyer can pay for purchases directly. (Is yet another business report and it shows since the largest part is what the company itself wants its clients to hear, regardless of if it had troubles in Russia and New York)

If the above, (a business report (Business Insider itself notoriously publishes such business quotes), another business report and another slightly similar business report) is all the coverage we have, it shows the company itself hasn't been noticed for anything else but republishing their own financials, that explicitly violates policy WP:NOT. The notabilities for companies itself not only states "Companies may be notable, but it also states that there's no automatic compromises with anything). SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Itself is a press release since violates WP:GUIDE as it, not only works as a business guide, but it states the company's own financials – that the article discussed the company's financials and how the company works is good journalistic practice. It does not make it a press release.
reliable sources such as New York Daily News,[10] The San Francisco Chronicle,[11] Bloomburg,[12] and Reuters[13] which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. It's been cited by as many as 377 articles[14] which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable.
Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Those quotations are from the sources themselves, not from the article, so there are no WP:GUIDE violations. If we applied Wikipedia content guidelines and policies to the sources themselves, then we would not be able to cite any newspapers because of WP:NOTNEWS, nor any scientific journals because of WP:NOTJOURNAL, nor any textbooks because of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and so on. So it is quite clear that WP:GUIDE is irrelevant in this situation. In fact, the relevant guideline would be
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and the sources used in the article do not violate it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I never say there were WP:GUIDE violations, I said there were WP:What Wikipedia is not violations. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "Itself is a press release since violates WP:GUIDE as it, not only works as a business guide, but it states the company's own financials" about the Business Insider article. Notwithstanding the fact that the Business Insider article in question is neither a press release, nor states the company's financials, it would not be a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE (which is part of WP:NOT) even if it did. That is because WP:NOTGUIDE is about Wikipedia articles themselves, not about the sources they cite. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is one of many companies working with bitcoin which bitcoin is a notable subject but local bitcoins is not notable also i have heard the argument that just because there is a competitor article that their company should also have an article. but wikipedia is not yellow pages or any other place that has a list of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "wikipedia is not yellow pages". But Wikipedia covers companies that pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this company does. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A Generic bitcoin marketplace, of which there is literally hundreds now. So they lost some bitcoins. Show me in one continent that has not happened dozens of times overs the last three years. Absolutely no inherent notability. scope_creep (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "a generic bitcoin marketplace". From The Daily Dot about LocalBitcoins, "The company's 110,000 active traders make it the largest decentralized market in the world, according to ArcticStartup." Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Decisions based on verifiable evidence, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable". So that argument is not specific to LocalBitcoins. Notability of the subject is instead established by reliable sources, rather than by any claim of inherent notability. It has nothing to do with whether there are hundreds or thousands of other bitcoin marketplaces. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalBitcoins participants: Citation Needed (talk · contribs), Agyle (talk · contribs), Jonpatterns (talk · contribs), Danrok (talk · contribs), Danski14 (talk · contribs), King of Hearts (talk · contribs), Benlisquare (talk · contribs), Sanpitch (talk · contribs), Xrt6L (talk · contribs), Joshua Issac (talk · contribs), 0x0077BE (talk · contribs), Hydrox (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how any of the examples brought up by SwisterTwister count as press releases. Enough coverage in reliable sources for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have enough coverage. The fact there are many bitcoin variants is irrelevant, each should be judged on there own notability. Article isn't high quality, again that in itself is no grounds to delete. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states "articles can be accepted even without high quality"? SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No policy states that, but the deletion policy also does not permit low article quality as a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion). In addition, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Article age says this:

However, note also that the current low quality of an article is also not a reason to delete it.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the subject should have an article and quality of article are separate issues. The former can be decided without reference to the current article. If the quality of the article is very poor and it has nothing of value then

WP:TNT might apply. In this case it the article is small, but not of no value. It's like a stub, better than nothing; but extending the article would improve Wikipedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Looks like good enough coverage to me. The article could stand to be improved, but that's no reason to delete it, otherwise we'd delete all the stub articles. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states "good enough" is what accepts an article? Because WP:NOt is the essential policy we use for unsuitable subjects. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I stated in the previous AfD, which closed as keep ("Delete BTEC-E; No consensus on Itbit or Williams; Keep the rest"), notability is established by coverage in multiple reliable sources. The subject has been covered by Business Insider, New York Times, Wired, and several other sources that Cunard has mentioned above. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this acceptable in WP:NOT policies? The sources themselves including BusinessInsider simply consisted of republished company information, announcements and quotes. Stating "But republishing the company's own financial quotes is good" is not what establishes our policies, and we've never considered adding it to policy at all, because that's only suitable for their own PR websites. WP:NOT itself explicitly states "Wikipedia is not the place for simple company information, business facts and other Yellow pages materials". Sinply because we kept it years ago bears no relevance now because we now know the damages of accepting submissions advertising so saying "It's not quality content, but let:a accept it anyway" damages us as an encyclopedia which can't even handle removing its own advertisements. We are not here in the interests of advertising the company (contrary to what was quoted above) but in the interests of a NoAdvertising Encyclopedia. As it is, we've never established GNG (note it's a suggestive guideline, not mandatory) to be an actual policy because it's too large and heavy of a spectrum and thus is needed to handled by policy case by case. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:NOT are you saying the article violates? The Business Insider article is about a criminal case involving people who used LocalBitcoin, so I do not understand why you think it is just made of republished company information. Are you talking about the

WP:NOTAD. That WP:GNG is only a guideline is not a reason to ignore it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was redirect to Armada Music. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A State of Trance (label)

)

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

Vanity label associated with Armin van Buuren, not indication of notability, sources are

WP:PRIMARY. Redirect to parent company. Karst (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. - TheMagnificentist 06:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? When I do a search, all that I am getting is social media and links to armada.com. Merging it with the radio show would be another option. Karst (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the following query in the news section, "A State of Trance" label -site:trance.news leads to several reliable sources such as Deep House Amsterdam, Broadway World, The Nocturnal Times, SPIN, Your EDM and more. - TheMagnificentist 06:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - That's right. It's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above users provide no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:COMPANY. No secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Armada Music. It's not a vanity label, it's a sub-label of a notable record company, and in the absence of sufficient coverage to support a separate article, a merge to the parent company seems an obvious outcome. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finland University

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

The subject of this article is a company/brand owned by three Finnish universities, which is intended to help foreign students with their applications to these universities, and inform them about life in Finland. It was created by a user with the same user name as the company. The article was PROD tagged by me, but the tag was removed because this had been recently accepted in AFC.

The problem with the article as initially accepted was that it contained mostly content that had nothing to do with this company: information about Finland, and about education in Finland, which is already covered in the relevant articles (I've checked). None of the existing references mentioned the marketing brand Finland University. I have removed several sections from the article for this reason, and what remains makes no claim to notability. I have found no sources in English or Swedish (I don't speak Finnish, but it would be reasonable to expect at least a few Swedish-language sources for this subject) other than press releases and other primary sources.

Bottom line: does not meet

WP:GNG. The participating universities are obviously very notable, but their combined marketing effort is not notable in itself. bonadea contributions talk 08:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a business, altho probably a not for profit one. It fails CORP (or ORG, as they are two different shortcuts to the same target), per the nominator. As this organization is a joint venture of three seperate notable institutions, there isn't a good target for a redirect. Ultimately, it would seem this kind of organization should be somewhat transparent anyway. There are thousands of manufacturer's representatives in the US. None of them are notable and most likely wouldn't want to be. This outfit has far more similarities to a manufacturer's rep than to an educational institution. John from Idegon (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is some kind of advertorial masquerading as an article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Azd. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahran tribe

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

citations are not listed for information given Wikiusername100 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. It is not the currents state of sourcing, but the potential availability of (other) sources on which we base deletions. In this case, I could find quite a lot of hits on GBooks for "Zahran tribe" and even a book dedicated specifically to that tribe. In fact, one of the current sources does support the article and I have added a link to the online version of that source. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not oppose a merge either, per Eperoton's reasoning below. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no proof a "Zahran" tribe even exists as anything of substance. A source needs to be reliable and this entry is not supported by reliable corroborated sources. It is based entirely on one person's opinion. It also should be deleted because the subject matter is not notable and not of significance. It is just footnote worthy at most, not worthy of an article. There is already an Azd tribe article. Zahran80 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Zahran80's reasoning Spiderone 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Azd. Though the tribe doesn't seem to be very notable, it could have its own article on the strength of this entry [15] and some Arabic books I'm seeing. Aside from the one cited by HyperGaruda, there's an academic-looking monograph about the tribe [16] whose author is identified as a historian in the press [17]. That said, at present it makes no sense to have this stub of an article, when there's not even a corresponding section in the article about its super-tribe. Eperoton (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Without context, non-Arab readers will not get why this family or clan is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The provided sources are not reliable and for the link provided by HyperGaruda, you cannot even look in or buy that book to see what's inside. Even if this information was true, the page is not worthy of an article, and like Zahran80 said, a footnote at most. If people search Zahran, they might assume or think that others are or were part of a "Zahran tribe" and that is simply not true or even relevant to our current times, and this is much more important. Merging the article with Azd also does not make sense for they do not have any relation to a supposed Zahran tribe.700yuster (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources ([18], [19]) say that the Zahran tribe is descended from the Azd tribe, so merging does make sense. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Valley, San Jose, California

)

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

Delete: as non-notable neighborhood in a middle sized city. Tourism promo, little more. Quis separabit? 02:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, nothing indicates this "neighborhood" meets GNG. Others in the template Neighborhoods of San Jose should be reviewed also. MB 04:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blossom Valley looks like a (fairly large) legally recognized neighborhood in District 10 of San Jose. Their neighborhood association is listed on the official District 10 website. There's also a
WP:GEOLAND. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that it is "legally recognized". MB 20:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "legally recognized," then? I think the three examples I provided satisfy the requirement. I'm curious to see what your interpretation is. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legally recognized means a law has been passed by a higher jurisdiction establishing a state/county/city/village, etc, with boundaries, government structure, responsibilities, etc. This is just a neighborhood. The fact that a neighborhood HOA is on a list of neighborhood associations in a council district is not legal status. That is just a list of "associations and organizations" in the council district. The fact that there is a neighborhood school with the same name, which is quite commmon, does not confer legal status on the neighborhood. Nor does an athletic association. A neighborhood can be notable based on GNG, but otherwise this is just an unofficial neighborhood. MB 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or merge into South San Jose per above.--Prisencolin (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: middle sized city? San Jose now has over a million people, ranking #10 in the USA. Blossom Valley is not just a subdivision, it is one of the neighborhoods used by Real Estate listings. Blossom Valley has 68,996 residents. http://www.areavibes.com/san+jose-ca/blossom+valley/demographics

It is referenced in over 7000 articles in the San Jose Mercury News. User:PG 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.0.56 (talk) [reply]

~~Delete as~~
~~talk) 17:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Incorrect @

Merced). The article in discussion here is about a neighborhood in San Jose's 10th district. Please strike your comment. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Thanks.

talk) 18:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. This is a reasonable neighborhood. A worser alternative would be to create articles for every one of the several hundred neighborhoods recognized by San Jose in this map of San Jose neighborhoods. We could split the Blossom Valley article into dozens of separate articles on some or all of: Blossom Hill Homes, Walnut Blossom, Blossom River, Foxchase/Sanchez, Erikson, Tatra, Branham, Hillview, Almaden Lake, Croydon, Pepper Tree, Holland, Homes at Almaden Lake, Shawnee, Calero, Miner, Hidden Glen, Sakamoto, etc. There literally are hundreds more neighborhoods that the planning department of San Jose defined in 1999 "for the purpose of assessing and assigning neighborhood service needs" (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=2058). --do ncr am 17:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 05:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 31 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. The significance of the roles is borderline. As far as the GNG is concerned, Aoziwe's SMH article has gone unanswered. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Witt

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

Fails to meet the guidelines for

WP:ENTERTAINER as the reliable sources briefly mentions him. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete. All I see are mentions in passing (through there are several), fails
WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant roles in multiple stage performances is met by Jack in Into the Woods for Victorian Opera and, although it's not mentioned in the article, Elder McKinley in the original Australian cast of
The Book of Mormon which is just about to open. Also has minor roles in other major productions, but that's less notable. Lots of guff in the article as written, but that's separate issue.Boneymau (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is on aggregation I believe sufficient to demonstrate GNG, even if not in any one particular field of activity, but that is not required. Yes the article needs some rewrite, but that is not grounds for deletion alone. I also think it scrapes past TOOSOON too. There are brief mentions in at least German, Polish, Russian, Spanish, possibly not the most reliable but none the less they are there, and appear to be accurate. Possibly also needs a bit more balance, for example. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. this article does not meet
WP:GNG secondly i cant find any independent Reliable sources about him at this moment Samat lib (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- not sufficiently notable; minor bit roles, with "Spoon boy" in The Matrix being the highlight. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Finberg

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

fails WP:AUTHOR . Has had no individual work published that is notable. And sourcing is not particularly third party. No significant awards either. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both GNG and WP:AUTHOR DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 09:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Tournament of Champions. I see a rough consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone article. A redirect appears to be reasonable as a plausible search term. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Kara France

)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet

WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not terribly interested in this topic, but there are a few news items about the guy stuff.co.nz newshub and TVNZ. All local (New Zealand) and nothing really compelling, but may push it closer to the
WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Biggest MMA organization in Japan just signed him to fight in their year end show. National MMA Media MMA Fighting posted about the fight MMAFighting.com. User:Dannyrube —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rizin isn't even listed among the second tier MMA organizations at

WP:MMATIER, so fighting for them is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Bellator Fighting Championships and multiple different Asian second tier organizations. It is owned by the owner of now defunct Pride Fighting Championships. User:Dannyrube —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to WP:GNG. A redirect would take searchers to the most notable thing in his career to date. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Not even sure a redirect is appropriate - eliminated in the second round.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 31 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 merge to
List of Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Protectobots

Protectobots (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 grouping does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to
List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
List of Autobots. Fictional group with no notability or non-trivial sources. They're already present on the master list of characters, so no merging is necessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Decepticons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderwing

Thunderwing (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 doesn't establish notability. The reception source is trivial on its own. TTN (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Decepticons. He had multiple incarnations, but was a Decepticon more often than not, making it the best target for a merge. The only source present on this character that might be consider reliable is a single, top-ten style list, which is not enough to support an entire article full of fancruft. It is enough to support a merger, however. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. I am not seeing any reason to believe that this character warrants their own article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stub could use expansion but not deletion. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 02:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police cadet

Police cadet (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)

Purely original research. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's just a stub that hardly says anything at all. What this needs is expansion, not deletion.Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Andrew D. on this matter. The topic is notable and a book called Police Education and Training in a Global Society includes significant coverage of this topic. We should expand and reference this article, not delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs expanding, but notable subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, and is attempting to cover two distinct topics that merely share a common terminology: trainee police officers and youth organizations. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really separate subjects and redirecting to police academy would rule out the other uses. British police cadets, for example, were something entirely different again (neither members of a youth organisation nor trainees at a police academy). The article certainly needs expansion, but it should not be either deleted or redirected to an article which excludes its other meanings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. needs to be expanded greatly. L3X1 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brunswick, Victoria#Commerce. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barkly Square

Barkly Square (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. Consensus has shown that 1 storey small shopping centres are not notable LibStar (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable centre, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As defined by our article on
Shopping malls, "A regional mall is, per the International Council of Shopping Centers, in the United States, a shopping mall which is designed to service a larger area than a conventional shopping mall. As such, it is typically larger with 400,000 sq ft (37,000 m2) to 800,000 sq ft (74,000 m2) gross leasable area..." This definition for regional mall provides an industry standard reference. Unscintillating (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Sydney Road, Melbourne states that the mall was built in the 1980s. The mall is covered at Brunswick, Victoria, so needs no special preparation as a redirection. Unscintillating (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 02:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. R. Bhandarkar

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: Fails
WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Held a
WP:PROF#C5. We have sufficient sources on which to base a short biography, e.g. [20][21][22]. – Joe (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I made a mistake with the sources; they're about the subject's father (R. G. Bhandarkar). However I'd still say the named professorship passes our usual standard of notability. – Joe (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree. The Times of India article on him -- Joe's third cited link -- is especially impressive, too.
talk) 21:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay. Well,
talk) 23:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep. Some evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Keep as the honorary professorship alone. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A purely honorary professorship wouldn't make him notable as an academic -- but I know that's not what you mean.
talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

*Weak keep Per Xxanthippe. Subject demonstrated basic
~~WP:GNG. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of nail polish remover

Environmental impact of nail polish remover (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)

An essay. Does not read like an encyclopedic article (
WP:N. It is almost certainly a student project for a course I was unable to trace, and one where the instructor seems to have failed to explain to this student the difference between encyclopedic topic and an essay, and policies of no original research and notability. While there is a merge proposal to acetone, it is only in the form of the template, no-one has bothered to follow it up to start a merger discussion. I thought about it, but I don't see what could be merged there - Nail polish article might be better. However, given the problems with OR and style, I am not sure how much is salvageable, and so I am recommending a deletion (hence, we are here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an essay, not an article. Perhaps some of the material here could be merged to acetone or nail polish. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, as per comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental impact of menstrual cups. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 31 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) -- Dane ^talk 02:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ujariyaon

Ujariyaon (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
talk, contribs) 15:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a village. It is the site of controversy in May 2016 vs. "top cop" of nearby
Times of India: Villagers raze structure 'built over graveyard by top cop
TNN | May 24, 2016, 01.28 AM IST). It is described as one of "old Muslim villages now surrounded by modern townships" in this, suggesting longer history (likely off-line). There is a 2006 court case disputing about it: "The suggestion of the Lucknow Development Authority before the Committee was to the effect that the land in village Ujariyaon which was actually green belt in the Master Plan of 2021 may be earmarked in the proposed Master Plan, 2021 for the purpose of residential use." I stop in the 2nd page of Google results. There would be more coverage in Hindustani and Urdu. --do ncr am 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram. It is a recognized population center which are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is this competition is close enough and deletion does not make sense. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 02:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship

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 should be deleted as it fails
WP:FUTURE. KAP03 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Some preparation has taken place for this, so it doesn't fail
WP:FUTURE. South Nashua (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this event is not very far off and I don't think deletion would be beneficial.
Lepricavark (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This competition knows the teams, the location and the dates. It's a future event, but it's simply the next edition of this competition. Asturkian (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in China

2018 in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails
WP:CRYSTAL. - Mr X 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Hang googles (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is also
WP:TOOSOON for this article to exist. KAP03 (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TOOSOON. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 13:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Shabana (actress). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana filmography

Shabana filmography (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 should be deleted because it is
WP:CSD A7. However the tag was removed by the page creator. -KAP03 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment A cursory
reliable sources
for 10 films in the list. Also, the dead link was easily repaired. There may be other problems with that reference - determining whether it supports any content is non-trivial since it is a general reference without inline citations, for example - but the fact that it was dead is not a sound reason to delete the article.

questions The essay
Katharine Hepburn performances. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I think
WP:LISTCRUFT meanings #12 and #8 apply. KAP03 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as
WP:A10, the main article can very well accommodate the list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is adequately referenced to Shabana (actress). I have declined the CSD request because the list does not currently exist on the main article and this is something that probably should be sorted out here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge if it fits. Notable actors always have a separate article for their filmography if its too long to fit in their main page. [23] Dream Focus 12:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 31 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. Sandstein 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little St. Nick Foundation

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Little St. Nick Foundation

Little St. Nick Foundation (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 sources are created by the organization itself. No sign it is in any way notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. Found one local, independent source, FoxNews-St. Louis news report, but otherwise, not generally known. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 31 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 redirected by nominator. Now points to Marghuzar. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murghazar

Murghazar (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)

Insufficiently notable CoolieCoolster (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 07:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. It appears to be an alternative spelling for Marghuzar, which already has an article and is notable. --do ncr am 19:34, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of prolific film directors

List of prolific film directors (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)

PRODed with reason "Unsourced and no scope defined. 200 is a vague number and I see no consensus on wiki or globally anywhere established to call 200+ as "prolific"." Later dePRODed by creator with reason "Somewhat disingenuous to remove content and then prod; restored content and removed prod". Well, the content removal was because the previous limit of 200+ was pushed down to 50+ by a newish editor to add in many Indian directors. Still see no reason for dePROD or anything worthwhile to keep this POV list of prolifics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary definition/criterion, plus counting shorts on a par with feature films is ridiculous. I see one article about noted directors who also happen to be exceedingly prolific,[24] but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of
WP:LISTN being met. I also agree that the numbers 200 and 50 seem completely arbitrary. Spiderone 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Snow delete here and author request equals speedy delete G7. Peridon (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Mexico Deal

Trump-Mexico Deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The large number of sources doesn't change the basic fact that this article is an opinion piece, not a
neutral point of view encyclopedic article, and that it cannot readily be reworked into a suitable article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now, Trump isn't even the president yet. Unless Trump announces a formal deal with Mexico as the POTUS, an article is not yet suitable since most of these reports are speculative. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an article, it's a personal essay, right down to the author's signature at the end. Anmccaff (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.! The subject is an important matter, this "deal" with Mexico, started since the Trump (the person) announced he was running for President. This is a important thing since this relation now will decide de future of millions, Wikipedia does not have this subject. It will need much contribution since thing will happen until it is settle in to what way to go. Every thing in it is a compilation of what has being said by experts, the exact words said by experts was used and can be confirmed by reading in the links. What you decide is fine, if it is to delete it, or keep contributing to make it better. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article but rather an advocacy essay. Wikipedia is
neutral point of view, and this one isn't. Writing neutrally is a core content policy and is not negotiable. The article title is not appropriate, since there is no deal between Trump and Mexico. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi The dealing started since Trump took the Mexican subject as a campaign the end of the deal, what will happen, we dont know. If you dont see that, I understand. But every thing in this subject has being part of the Deal Trump is negotiating. he is a great negotiator, he is doing that. In time you will see the result. There are 2 points of view in this and 2 possible outcome, I took the experts of each side, give the options of that by the experts. There is no possible side the result has not happen. Is a negotiation in process. The options are there of what experts say can happen. The sources please check them. They are the most credited in the subject, there are no better ones. Trump, the Mexican President, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the NAFTA, New York Times. I am not saying this is the case, but I did a previous Article on a person that did much in history. The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, he said, the sources, that the person did not do that, etc. when I demonstrated every thing was correct, that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it. has a page with stars, he is a publisher, etc. I just want to contribute Wikipedia if good information is welcome. What ever you decide, is fine for me. Thank you NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your claim that "The person that marked for deletion offer me to help, [...] that person insulted me, etc. I just let it go, a few months latter he published it" goes completely against the automatically generated page histories of the article, your talk page, and Robert McClenon's. This has been pointed out for you before: quit lying about other users and start paying attention to what they are saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson I did not say that. What I said is that in the past I did an other Article, a (other) person, market for deletion, etc. Not the person you are saying of whom I dont have an opinion at this moment. Please keep communication according to Wikipedia. I only try to contribute to Wikipedia. NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. This is an essay, full of original research and pov-pushing. It might be possible to create a good article on this subject, but this isn't it. Bradv 18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this topic has potential, but would have to be written carefully to stay neutral and not drift either way, advocacy or Trump-bashing. I don't think the original revision, which I looked at, meets that criteria. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete now that it has been blanked.
Lepricavark (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Since
WP:G7. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Ayam

Ariana Ayam (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)

Previously redirected with reason "one-film wonder,
WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete appearing in one film is not enough for notability except in exceptional cases which Ayam is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Neil

Bob Neil (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 evidence of any notability for this guy. An amateur sportsman whose name has been used to spoof foreign sports fans. References clearly show that he is a lower tier player who has been around for years but never been notable. His assumed notability arises from the simple fact that he not notable. Being paradoxical is not the same as being notable on Wikipedia Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep There are multiple independent reliable sources referring to this subject matter. Only has to meet GNG, and does not have to meet NSPORT of any type unless that is the sole category of notability, but it appears not so in this case. Notability is conferred by multiple IRS, not necessarily the prowess or level of activity. The whole section on this subject [25] should be moved over and merged and wiki-rationalised. It is currently longer than the main article. There would appear to be a lot more to this than the content of the current article in question indiicates. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. I second what Aoziwe has said above. The evidence of notability starts with the news articles already referred to in the article. Being named a South Australian "Living legend" by the ABC is an important factor. The section at Adelaide University Football Club needs paring down, as much of it is inappropriate. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not notable based solely on his football career –
WP:GNG barrier, but that doesn't appear to have been the case. The source used in the article even states that Neil is "not widely known outside of the Adelaide University Football Club". IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is not enough to meet GNG and nothing comes close to meeting sport related notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a fairly good look at the articles and there is enough press coverage in the Adelaide media to meet
WP:AFLN. That said, I may just be one of the "foreign sports fans" being spoofed. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - can anyone prove that this is a real person? Hack (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article says all there's needed to say, he's not a professional major player and there's nothing substantial, there's nothing to suggest actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think there is any proof that Bob Neil is a real person. The group photo of players on the club website has a face blurred which ties in with the text only hinting at where he may be or what he may have done, but no specific reference given or source identified. Even the direct comment on the 1986 Grand Final discusses his name being called out to inspire the team, not any deeds he did himself. RossRSmith (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in
reliable sources
.

Castello, Renato (2002-09-18). "Bob Neil, Icon in Waiting, Yet to Be Hung". City Messenger. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
The article notes:

HE REPUTEDLY charms snakes and pats tigers. Songs are written in his honour and, now he has been painted on canvas, Bob Neil's mates want him immortalised as an icon.
"He's an SA legend. We're actually thinking we should register him like the Balfour's frog cake as a heritage icon," University of Adelaide Football Club (UAFC) member David Gordon said.
In 1986, the club adopted Mr Neil as its hero, turning him into name now familiar across the world sporting scene.
Mr Gordon said it started at the 1986 A1 grand final as UAFC was making a comeback against Riverside Football Club. Everyone started chanting "Bob Neil" to the tune of "Here We Go, Here We Go, Here We Go".
They've since flogged his name on stubbie holders, song books, stickers and T-shirts.
UAFC members have waved placards at cricket matches in India emblazoned with: "Bob Neil charms snakes, pats tigers and worships cows".
Unley artist Rebecca Hunt painted Mr Neil for the Archibald Prize but the painting was not accepted.

Cornes, Graham (2006-06-03). "Why winners wear black". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
The article notes:

It is the Bob Neil phenomenon that is as startling as any in the club's history. Neil, a humble mathematician, was a C grade player of modest but reliable ability. Without having met the man, you could imagine him wearing green or brown and playing in a back pocket. The sort of club man who was always there to tap the keg or to clean up the mess, Neil has been immortalised in what surely started as an irreverent "mickey-take". But the legend inexplicably grew, and the "Bob Neil" banner appears on stands at all the world's major sporting events and the club has its own business enterprise with "Bob Neil" memorabilia. Indeed in 1991, before the Crows' first ever-game against Sydney at the SCG, the players were bewildered but heartened to see the "Bob Neil" banner adorning the Bill O'Reilly Stand.

Cornes, Graham (2014-08-07). "Graham Cornes: It's wrong for the Crows and Blacks to join forces". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
The article notes:

Adelaide University Blacks football legend Bob Neil (left), former AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson and first year footballer Jonathan Hamer, wearing the club guernsey.
...
And what of Bob Neil, the Blacks’ famous living talisman? A whole movement has been built around this former half-back flanker who has distinguished himself for being - well - unremarkable.
The epitome of a clubman, who is happy to serve selflessly and inconspicuously, Neil has become the most famous and conspicuous Black of all.
The club’s website is bobneil.com and Bob Neil signs and banners have appeared across the world, at every major event. He, along with that other club stalwart, Fred Bloch - long serving and loyal, the man who wrote the club song - is at the core of this great club. It is a club that, as the amateur, suburban and country clubs struggle with the demands of paying players and fielding teams, provides just a glimmer of hope.

Heggen, Belinda (2003-11-30). "It's time we joined the chorus of support". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
The article notes:

Adelaide University Football Club is the bane of the SA Amateur Football League for its riotous chants and signature "Bob Neil" anthem (Bob Neil is an unassuming club member who was turned into their mascot years ago).
A couple of years ago the club was fined $400 because its fans put Bob Neil's name in place of the words of Advance Australia Fair.

Coultate, Aaron (2006-07-26). "News". City Messenger. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
The article notes:

The Bob Neil phenomenon began as an in-house joke but has he has developed into a peculiar and fitting club icon. Mr Maddern described Bob Neil, a former C Grade player, as something of an "anti-hero".
"Bob was the ultimate clubman. His playing abilities were somewhat limited, but he was the first to buy you a drink after the game and help out around the club and he really represents what we are all about."
The Bob Neil legend has even spawned a range of merchandise, and Bob Neil banners have been spotted at sporting events across the globe.

Wright, Jonathan (2014-07-23). "7 Wonders of South Australia winners: Living legends".
ABC Online. Archived from the original
on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
The article notes:

Bob Neil
Bob Neil, a man not widely known outside of the Adelaide University Football Club is number seven.
The South Australian Minister for Recreation and Sport Leon Bignell was one of a huge number of people to the nominate Neil.
Legendary feats of heroism abound about Neil.
Andrew Darcey of Prospect said "he was the greatest figure head, legend and down to earth bloke that ever walked onto a footy field" Mitchell Francis said "there is no one man who is more symbolic of everything that it is to be South Australian".

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Bob Neil to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review the added sources @IgnorantArmies, Johnpacklambert, SwisterTwister, and RossRSmith czar 04:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to comment sooner about the sources and I'll say that he's still not satisfying the applicable notability and that's how we judge this article, not about any listings and notices as the links above are, and thus it's not the needed substance thus still delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just read the quotes posted by User:Cunard, such as "signs...across the world". The world has great reason to want to review reliably sourced information about this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was There is no consensus to do anything. A continuation of the merge discussion can happen I the article talk page if desired.. - GB fan 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/r/The Donald

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 notable topics of Donald Trump, fake new and reddit are covered by numerous articles. This article replays non-encyclopedic discussion within the subreddit that would fail our reliable sources check and BLP policy. Though it's not the creators intent, this article is an end run around our WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. Reddit is not a reliable source and it is unencyclopedic to create an article in order to bring up information that fails our source-ability criteria. As an analogy, this would be realizing that the National Enquirer is not a reliable source to verify anything about Trump, fake news or the election so instead of using it as a source, Wikipedia creates an article about National Enquirers coverage of these topics. We already have well sourced articles on the real topics and we don't need back door inclusion of poorly sourced material. Subreddits are not notable in and of themselves when they are covering mainstream topics. Any other position opens the door to free-for-all policy violations. As example, there is numerous garbage in subreddit /r/KotakuInAction. The encyclopedic topics within that subreddit such as GamerGate are covered by articles with very strict BLP and WP:V. Creating an article on the subreddit, though, would open the door to many issues. Subreddits by themselves are not notable but their topic may be notable and the topic, not the subreddit, is what is encyclopedic. Speedy deletion this under A7, A10 and G10 along with WP:NOT was reverted so full AfD started. All the content that is encyclopedic exists elsewhere and the subreddit is no more importnt than a random blog sites. DHeyward (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, and I'm leaning towards speedy. Just because topics involved with this forum are elsewhere does not preclude this article existing. I'm unconcerned about this "opening the door". If the sources establish notability, that's enough. Per
WP:WEBCRIT The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. A brief examination of the sources used in this article shows this sub-reddit meets that criteria.That man from Nantucket (talk
)

Keep. In addition to being covered by multiple non-trivial published works I'm unsure of where the "opening the door" claim originates from as there are a couple subreddits that seem to have had their own pages for a while now. I don't believe the fact that it is a subreddit changes the notability or importance; whether it is a subreddit or a hypothetical "TrumpForums" isn't important as it has quite a bit of published coverage. Shimunogora (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy. How silly, an article on a subreddit when even the venerable and 10x more notable /b/ from 4chan does not warrant one? /r/The Donald is just a part of a larger message board, one where people talk, sometimes notoriously, about President Trump. Notoriety for things said there does not make the "there" itself notable. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point but I believe it has definitely crossed into the notability threshold after people such as Ann Coulter, Curt Shilling, Roger Stone, and Trump himself have hosted Q&A sessions on the messageboard. At this point it is practically the de facto online Trump discussion hub and according to its traffic statistics page it gathered nearly 5 million unique pageviews last month. Shimunogora (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Reddit I agree with ValarianB, the situation regarding this article is very similar to that of the /b/ board having an article. There is already a section of the Reddit page dedicated to notable subreddits, and the information contained here would probably be better suited there than on its own page. 1adog1 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. While there's enough sources to argue that this subreddit is notable, at least at present, it doesn't really need its own article when there's a perfectly good one to merge it into. Much of the content here is indeed duplicating information in Reddit. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:OVERLAP. Ceosad (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The_Donald is a massive community and their candidate won. There are reliable sources such as the NYT article already referenced. Merging with Controversial Reddit communities smacks of political judgment, since in the USA's two party system the Hillary Clinton subreddit is similarly controversial to the other side (side note: the HRC subreddit is probably not notable, because it never achieved similar traffic, traction, or notability, and obviously because HRC lost). Specific criticisms of reliance on original Reddit content should be resolved case by case and not used to justify a draconian deletion. Wookian (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The_Donald meets Wikipedia's topic criteria of notability. The article content satisfies all the criteria of verifiability (i.e. it has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). A website which has been the sole subject of numerous NPOV, mainstream media news articles, including the paper of record, The New York Times, is obviously suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia.--FeralOink (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as The_Donald maintains notability apart from Reddit. /b/ is different from /r/the_donald due to /b/'s complete and absolute reliance on 4chan for its notability (e.g. "/b/, a board on 4chan has done xyz") where all actions conducted by /b/ could, in fact, fall under a general "4chan" umbrella as all actions of /b/ could be described as actions on 4chan without a traumatic loss of significance (meme from /b/ is approximately equal to meme from 4chan). However, /r/the_donald has a notability apart from the notability of Reddit, whereas it is an online forum hosted upon the site of Reddit, while being separable from Reddit. Other controversial subreddits do not have their own article due to their notability primarily coming from their relation to Reddit as a website. /r/shitredditsays, /r/beatingwomen, and /r/jailbait being prime examples of subreddits where an inherent part of their notability comes from them being a subforum on a website, that website being Reddit. /r/the_donald's notability comes from coverage of /r/the_donald in a manner that is independent of it being a part of Reddit, as it is (one of) the primary online discussion forums for Trump supporters. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion about whether to keep or merge. Sandstein 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE big time. Reddit is not notable at all, anyone with a Reddit account can post on any sub-reddit with no fact checking (except in cases of AMA ). Otherwise nothing is subjected to editorial scrutiny. We wouldn't accept a twitter feed called #The_Donald for the same reason on Wikipedia. Delete and
Kill with fire ] KoshVorlon 20:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Cards84664 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Reddit It is just a sub forum. It should be the main page with links to Donny and Pissagate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable enough (compared to /b/ as others have noted). Nominator raises good points. A merge to Reddit would be acceptable too EvergreenFir (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a possible merger to
Presidential campaign of Donald Trump or some article where expressions of support for him and his policies in social media can be explored in a more broad context. The sub-reddit itself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The article (under a different name) was previously nominated for deletion. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by User:That man from Nantucket. I participated in the previous AFD, and I'll just quote myself here:
"The article already has two sources: "How r/the_donald Became a Melting Pot of Frustration and Hate" (Vice) and "Donald Trump to Drop In on Reddit, Where He's Already a Phenomenon" (NBC). In addition to that, I've found the following:
"Active Revolt Against Reddit’s CEO" (Vice) - This is definitely focused on the subreddit itself, not Trump.

"Donald Trump to host Reddit AMA" (CNN) - Brief mention

"From the media to moon landings: Trump takes questions in Reddit AMA" (The Guardian) - About the AMA, but gets into some details of the workings of the subreddit.

"Welcome to the Bizarro World of Trump Supporters on Reddit" (Wired) - Totally focused on the subreddit.

"Some Donald Trump Supporters Are Now Calling Him ‘God Emperor’" (The Huffington Post) - Reporting on events in the subreddit, with some history.

So that's seven sources total, four of which are detailed profiles of the subreddit. That's enough to warrant inclusion."

I see that since then, a lot of additional sources have been added. Right off the bat when looking at the references section, a huge profile in the New York Times seems like plenty to show independent notability. There's also the Washington Post article talking about the controversy with the Reddit CEO getting into it with the subreddit, and that goes into a good amount of detail too. I'm really scratching my head at how people don't see this easily passing
WP:GNG, now more than before even. We document notable topics even if they're distasteful. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The Donald has been covered in numerous reliable sources and I feel that the page is of a sufficient size to warrant keeping it where it's at, rather than merging it somewhere else. The page has increased in size since the deletion was proposed two weeks ago, and it could potentially continue to grow over the next four to eight years. And deleting it entirely would certainly not be beneficial to people who come here to read about The Donald. AJFU 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Since we seem to have a dedicated article for controversial subreddits, this should definitely belong there. A single subreddit doesn't need a whole article, and if other controversial subreddits don't have an article, this shouldn't either. -- numbermaniac (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - such a wealth of significant mentions of this subreddit in reliable sources! fantastic sources, the best! Pure gold! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
sh! 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

How is notability inherited here? The sources used are all about the sub, not Reddit, not Trump. Just saying notability is inherited doesn't make it so. Speculation about why sources chose to write about this is in the end, just speculation. We go where the sources take us.That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion about whether to keep or merge. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - To all those who say MERGE with the Controversial Reddit communities article, please be aware that the content of that article focuses on sub-reddits such as 1) jailbait; 2) CreepShots; 3) Gawker exposé; 3) beatingwomen; 4) TheFappening; and 5) fatpeoplehate. Those are disreputable or at the very least, self-parodying topics. They are in marked contrast to a grass-roots movement that served as a focal point of support that led to the election of the 45th President of the United States of America and the next leader of the free world. This article should NOT be stuffed under "TheFappening", as that is a ridiculous assessment of importance, unless one has a biased, partisan viewpoint against President-Elect Donald Trump. Yes, I am a member of WikiProject Donald Trump, but I am also an American, Jewish female, and I want to see my nation's president, including the online advocacy networks who supported him, represented in Wikipedia as the encyclopedia-worthy content that they are.--FeralOink (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors motivations into question is all the rage on Wikipedia. I like to let policy be my beacon instead of my political beliefs. From my view,
WP: WEBCRIT is the most authoritative guideline for determine notability in this instance. The guideline states in part The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself which is clearly true in this case. Though this being Wikipedia, don't color me surprised when a lazy admin just counts the votes. And for the record I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump. Thats about all I can say without risking a block for violating BLP policies.That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The article has been significantly improved since this AfD began, and there are plenty of sources which discuss exactly this topic. Just because reddit itself is not a
verifiablity standard. Bradv 19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep topic passes the notability guidelines.
Lepricavark (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Reddit. Cledrupide (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Definitely trending towards "keep," but the reiteration of their views by the "delete" !voters make this a no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Mate S

Huawei Mate S (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 references and no text. No
credible claim of significance, which would require text and/or references. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete

Somewhat surprised upon double checking myself that A3 doesn't apply to pages with only infoboxes.

Misses A7 on thin procedural grounds.

Note to closing admin, new user has, by my count, created eight similar articles, some of which have some content, but others which are similarly only infoboxes.

This includes
Huawei Mate, CSDd by User:RHaworth
as A1, although I do feel like A1 is a stretch if one knows that Huawei is a phone and consumer electronics manufacturer.

TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The only coverage in sources is by blogs who make money by advertising the products, publishing press releases, and affiliate advertising.- Mr X 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, as described above. If someone wanted to start an article about the series at
Huawei Mate, maybe a merge could be done. Peacock (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Comfortably passes
WP:GNG. See source examples below. The article has some text at this time. Perhaps the article lacks content because it was nominated for deletion 58 minutes after it was created, or maybe not, but this can be easily expanded. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

International Business Times

The Irish Times

The Journal

The National

Mashable

ZDnet

CNet

Stuff.co.nz

PC Magazine

Rte

Newstalk 106-108

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Northamerica1000's sources provided. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by NA1K. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a fast, beautiful, solidly built and feature-packed Android phone.[26]

I'm sorry but I'm sticking with delete. I looked through the first half of the sources, and they're all just product review opinion pieces. If you take out everything that would be completely promotional in an article (like the above), there's really nothing left to say in an article besides product specifications. Considering that this and the slew of other similar product catalog stubs were created by an obvious COI account, apparently purposefully to circumvent our CSD criteria, it seems that
where this is heading
is the creation of dozens or scores of stubs on every product this company has ever put out.

At the end of the day, having lots of sources doesn't mean much when basically nothing in those sources is usable on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there's no current indication that this or any of the similar subject are of any enduring encyclopedic value.
TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm aware of the sources and standing on delete as well. Virtually every electronic device produced in the past 15-20 years has been reviewed by CNET and their ilk. Many of these publisher receive advertising revenue from the companies who manufacture the products. Several of the sources listed above are actually the same publisher (
10 year test.- Mr X 00:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Ping
TimothyJosephWood 00:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Passes
WP:GNG. Dozens of sources available on line in addition to those cited above. Certainly seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage. Very new article - there are articles on every IPhone and Samsung Galaxy - this article should have a chance to develop as well. CBS527^Talk 18:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The phone has enough press coverage for the article to be improved and meet Wikipedia standards Daylen (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harish Kapadia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nawang Kapadia

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

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

Subject does not satisfy the notability criteria of
WP:SOLDIER— Wikipedia is not a memorial. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

sources ran a quick search at
Times of India, found, [27], [28]. I think we need to check some news archives on this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Someone familiar with the Kargil War would be useful to this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-terrorist operations in Kupwara area on November 2000. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks, MBlazeLightening. Did you have a chance to run a news archive search, to see what coverage he or the action he was killed in may have gotten back then?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found a few passing mentions of the subject, but nothing that really amounts to
significant coverage. Given that the subject's father (Harish Kapadia) has an article (albeit largely unsourced), and the main information of note from this article is also included there, potentially a redirect could be considered if the notability of the father's article is accepted. Otherwise I don't believe that the subject is notable enough for a stand alone article. I note that both this article, and the one relating to the father, appear to have been written by Sonam Kapadia who appears to be the brother of Nawang. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I could live with a redirect, per the below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harish Kapadia. I took a moment to run Proquest news archive searches; the father is clearly notable;his article could be better written, but RS exist. The son has been memorialized by his grieving parents, and this has received coverge, but searches on his name did not readily bring up sources on him aside from the parents activities in his memory. Better keywords; familiarity with the military action in which he died, or Hindi might do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with no significant decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vanessa Williams. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Hervey II

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

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

The sources provided are extremely misleading. The majority of them are passing mentions or are on the topic of his notable wife, Vanessa Williams. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/redirect to Vanessa Williams. No notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area

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:PROMO. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I think you're overthinking this. This is simply a list article (like many others on Wikipedia) that could easily moved to "List of biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area", although I'm not sure that's really necessary. The refs are there simply to prove the existence of these as biotech companies, there's nothing more notable than that, nor does the article claim them to be – as is also true with other List articles. The article is written in a pretty staid manner and doesn't come off as spam in any way, IMHO. In fact, for a List article, it's actually cited quite well, don't you think? If this article were not allowed to exist, that would topple the entire domain of List articles on Wikipedia.
Castncoot (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and improve. We should have a real article here, not a listicle. The majority of the largest pharma firms in the world are headquartered in the New York area. We should be able to muster more sources than
WP:RS when I have time. Chris vLS (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You seem like an insightful editor and perhaps an expert on this topic,
Castncoot (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Rename to a "list of..." to be an accurate title. Per
MOS:LIST the 3 failures cited for an article do not apply to this list and lists are valid. My opinion, the present list is a valuable resource list to keep.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Agree that article should be renamed "List of ....". As a list,
WP:NOTDIR, but I think a useful article could be crafted from this topic. Ajpolino (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Wikipedia is not the phone book. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- the last two mayors, and the current governor, have made the expansion of this sector to be major initiatives. There are
plenty of available sources online. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by the nominator. The topic itself is not notable. There is no coverage in
reliable sources
for this topic and stand alone lists must satisfy Wikipedia's core content policies per the following page and section:

Stand alone lists and the section entitled content policies - WP:V, .WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. There must be reliable sources available to satisfy these core content policies - and no reliable sources seem to be available.

And none of the companies are shown to be notable. The references do not support notability of any of these companies and the references do not support this as a notable topic. I haven't found any sources that do this either.

nuetral point of view
. So trying to base inclusion on WP:MOS does not work.

Also, there has been no improvement in the references since the opening of this AfD by the author or anyone else. The author (above - first comment - indented) simply makes arguments that have no bearing on this article's relationship to core content policies - of which there is no relationship. As stated above in the original nomination, some refs are merely websites - and these do nothing to indicate notability or satisfy core content policies. The other refs are population statistics and these have no relationship to the topic or the listed items - and therefore fail notability and core content policies.

This means most of the listed items have no support from the references, not even proof they exist. The effort for creating this article and showing that it merits inclusion seems to be much less than minimum. The references appear to be window dressing and gives the appearance of actual referencing - when at least half the referencing has no relationship to this article. This seems to indicate that point of view for this article is not neutral and therefore, ultimately, the article serves as a
promotional piece. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete - Most of the lead is about NYC per se and not the biotech industry there; the lead does not establish the notability of the topic as required per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve (forgot to actually !vote above). Isn't it ironic that
Castncoot (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I thought you could make a decent list article out of the topic. but this is not a policy/guideline-compliant list article (please actually read the links in my !vote) and would need to be completely reworked to make it one. and i didn't object when you created it. finally, the rfc is going fine, no need for "leverage" whatever you mean by that. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is to keep and improve this by adding other references.
Castncoot (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Rather, it seems the Jytdog has aptly noted that this article does not qualify for inclusion per WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCOMPANY, and
WP:LSC. In fact, this appears to fail WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:LSC because none of the references are reliable sources. Also, in contrast to what the author initially claimed above, the intro of the article clearly makes the claim that this article is a "partial and growing list of notable New York metropolitan area biotechnology and pharmaceutical corporations" - (please see diff [31]) - and this is not the case as demonstrated by the lack of reliable sourcing in this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The topic is appropriate for a standalone list and the sources are here to back it up. I have my own opinions on Silicon Alley, but that's irrelevant here. If there's editing or cleanup to be done that's a matter to be discussed at the talk page, not an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, why is the topic appropriate for a standalone list? Which sources back this up as a topic that merits inclusion? I don't see any, and in particular the references in the article don't seem to demonstrate this satisfies the core content policies I noted above. The references refer to one subject, while the topic is a different subject. I am willing to review the references or sources to which you refer - which ones are they? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation games with CD audio tracks

List of PlayStation games with CD audio tracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:LISTN. The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I'm quite surprised that it's lasted 10 years despite containing nothing more than original research. Spiderone 13:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting information from my point of view, but definitely does not meet WP notability standards, and is completely unverifiable due to the absence of coverage in reliable sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the recent consensus to delete all the lists about PS2 game disc types. Sources don't cover this enough to make it
verifiable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
soft deletion as a contested PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Cult of Sincerity

The Cult of Sincerity (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)

Released back in 2008 and previously de-PRODDED, this internet film doesn't seem to have (ever) met
talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film; no third-party sources. If it was anything remotely special it'd have more than two questionable sources in eight years.
^{• speak up •} 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 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.
soft deletion as a lightly participated, uncontested AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

After hearing nothing from

soft deleted the article. It may be restored upon request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Oakland Marriott City Center

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

References, yes. But not good enough to persuade me that this hotel is in any way notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* I was looking at this through the lens of someone living in Oakland and viewing this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_Oakland,_California. It's the largest hotel and only convention center in the city. There are a lot of buildings on the list missing, I had planned to add most of these that are missing: https://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/102062/oakland-ca-usa (AT&T, Park Bellevue Tower, St Paul's Tower). If this isn't in the spirit of wikipedia, let me know on my talk page and I will stop adding buildings in Oakland. Ferrari250 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Nothing to establish that this hotel is notable. MB 04:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gorguts. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Lemay

)

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

Delete. Musician whose notability is band-dependent, with no evidence shown that he clears the

user-generated discography list on a fan forum, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes. Redirect per JohnPackLambert also acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on Gorguts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 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 12:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC criteria for musicians #6 (Is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles) for being a member of Negativa and Gorguts. Hang googles (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking blocked users vote per checkuser block - -- Dane ^talk 02:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No NMUSIC criterion can be passed just by asserting passage; as with any other criterion in NMUSIC, #6 does not confer includability until it's supported by

user-generated directory, not a reliable source that represents media coverage about him. NMUSIC actually states, right in its own introduction that "the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed." Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Masson

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

Reference state he is not a principle. second ref states: Nicholas Masson is thrilled to "Seize the Day" in his Broadway National Tour debut as MUSH.

I don't think he is notable quite yet.

I think the article doesn't satisfy

WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:43, 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

]

Strong Keep. I believe this is just a case of applying the wrong notability guidelines.
speedy keep. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per X4n6. Hang googles (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)User is now CU-banned[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 1. The musical filmed on stage. IMDB although not a ref, similar to ref 1, which is ticket page, DOES NOT list him, as he is not a primary player. 2. An Instagram page. Says he is a main stage performer, not a lead or a Star nor a guest lead or star. 3. States he as made his Broadway introduction, a Broadway newcomer is the first sentence. 4. Isn't valid as it doesn't mention his name. 5. This is a blog and invalid, although it points to the fact he is a newcomer. 6 and 7. You assert he has a big following on social media. A big following is considered above 200-250,000+ people. That is the established number on Twitch, Spotify, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter. On Instagram he has 9 1/2 thousand followers. On Twitter he has around 2500. So it all points to him being a newbie, starting out. As regards the Tony Award winning show. Notability is not conferred nor inherited. He doesn't pass

WP:BIO. I truly think at some point he will be in here. But not at the moment. scope_creep (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and I meant to comment sooner, I concur with the nomination since the analysis above and my own shoe it to be too trivial and none of it establishes the substance actually needed. To specify, the links simply consisted of announcements and mentions, yet the Keep labels then as "significant" and also the cited "notabilities" are in fact suggested notability guidelines, not policy; with this said, WP:NOT is our policy here and it explicitly states we are not IMDb, therefore since nothing else was significantly shown to be substantial, Delete (sources themselves never actually focused with him let alone lend actual convincing). SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am concerned that the only objections I see, are based on either incorrect assumptions/conclusions, misinformation, or misinterpretation of policy. For example, perhaps the nominator can explain, for our purposes, what difference it makes if a movie is filmed on a stage or a soundstage, if it has a theatrical release in movie theatres? Regarding IMDB, the current entry also does not list the director, producers, musical director, cinematographer or any crew or post-production. That just means the current IMDB entry is incomplete. However, he is listed there now. Besides, the official website also lists subject and his character name. So the claim that he is not a "primary player" is disproved by the official source - which, since it's Disney, is reliable and conclusive. Their link: Meet the cast and creative team proves the subject plays one of the principal roles. Also the Instagram/Twitter pages only approximate social media followers. But as the nominator originally misapplied
WP:STUB. The threshold for deletion of stubs is "little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability." Neither of which apply. X4n6 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The NYT article is quite substantial, but there are concerns about the author of the article; however, I see no evidence suggesting that her role as a writer at

WP:IAR here unless we do it for all their articles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm nominating because the author user was apparently a paid advertiser in a noticeably active advertising campaign, and thus WP:NOT applies, damned be any notability guidelines or local suggestions, and it's clear this is simply a locally active group and the sources themselves emphasize it, look at how the one 2006 book is in fact a listing and one of the sources is the group itself in a group interview! If we honestly consider that substance, that's not even close to an actual encyclopedia article. I myself had found sources beforehand and all they were are these casual news stories, nothing we consider actual substance for a convincing article. Also, a search at NYT again showed nothing else so it seems the once article listed here is the only existing one. As always, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - a biased and disruptive nomination. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Several external links of significant coverage. South Nashua (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Nashua I'm curious how this is a policy-based vote when that's explicit what we consider at such concerning AfDs, including since this was in fact a blatant advertisement by an apparent paid advertiser, and the fact no one ever cared to fix it, shows it cannot, and especially not when we're considering such essential policies as WP:NOT (which is a non-negotiable pillar policy). My own comment above analyzed the sources and showed how the NYT itself (a major political journalism) had no significant coverage of it, as the current source itself is a trivial announcement. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the NYT link, there's one to the WSJ, Huffington Post and Politico. I'm also unclear how you perceive this as an advertisement from an advertiser, I'm not seeing anything in the article's history or talk page regarding this, and if that did exist, why wasn't it mentioned there? Just because the world has given up on improving an article doesn't mean the article doesn't deserve to exist. Also, who is "we"? South Nashua (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:GNG. No significant coverage specific to this org. Sources give only a mention & discuss other issues. Nothing in-depth. Article reads like a press release. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group is notable as shown by a Google News search which includes a mention yesterday in the Washington Post and many other articles over many years. The 2007 article in The New York Times already cited in the article is lengthy, detailed and goes a long way toward establishing notability. Nominator's statement that "it's clear this is simply a locally active group" is demonstrably false since the group is headquartered in Washington, DC and is active in states from California to Massachusetts, according to very high quality reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mention is exactly that: One mention as part of a compiled map, it wasn't actual significant independent news because it was a 1-time mention. Simply one NYT article is not enough and especially not when (1) this article is by an advertising campaigner, which violates policy alone. As it is, the sources themselves are simply named mentions as part of events or similar (specifically because of activities and their plans), none of that automatically inherits them notability. Despite these Keep comments, no one has actually shown larger amounts of actual significant news to suggest the needed improvements therefore what is simply suggested is a "Keep - It must be notable if it was mentioned in a news article". Also, in considerations to my link above, the only news found were casual stories and mentions, not nearly the substance needed. Paid advertising by a campaigner is serious enough but when there's simply no established substance, there's simply nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow re-creation Articles written by this banned user should not be allowed to stand, but if an editor in good standing wants to start over, there's no reason not to let them try. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BackConnect

BackConnect (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:CORP. created by single purpose editor. Zero gnews hits LibStar (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:CORP. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A
WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 31 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 Huawei P8. Merge the content at your leisure. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei P8 Max

Huawei P8 Max (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:PRODUCT for lack of independent sources. - Mr X 15:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It's worth taking a look at some of the available sources (via google search) mentioning the product. I added one to the page - the sources seem suspect at best (which is why I am commenting, not "keep" or "delete" voting). Not sure if what's out there is enough for a re-write, or at the very least the addition of some sources to the page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. I don't think this product is independently notable. This article and the related article
Huawei P8 Lite could be merged into a single article at Huawei P8. Deli nk (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into
WP:PRODUCT. Also, I don't see the need for multiple articles about very similar products if we can have one that covers them all. Adam9007 (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Huawei P8 - no evidence that each model requites its own article for now. Timtempleton (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some form of merge with Clintonian is suggested, with the details to be worked out on the talk page (e.g. what direction to merge in). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clintonism

Clintonism (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 at best a
WP:DICDEF of the term as defined by the Democratic Leadership Council and not much else. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to Draft A google search reveals a lot of results about it, although most are about Hillary and not Bill, so that will need to be added (or the article be changed entirely). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete, then immediately move
p 14:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, I don't think calling this term a "neologism" is the right call. They've been referring to Bill Clinton's political positions as "Clintonism" since he was President, and that was a decade and a half ago.
p 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I just noticed that the similar article Clintonian also exists. Perhaps a redirect/merge there would solve this issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clintonian - good work finding that one guys (and gals?). Timtempleton (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Passes the
subject specific guideline. Historic consensus indicates there is unlikely to be opposing arguments for delete that will carry sufficient weight to be successful. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Aurélio Buta

Aurélio Buta (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 footballer fails
WP:GNG and has not played in a fully pro league Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has made a number of appearances in the
WP:GNG, but he's notable. Giant Snowman 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Same reason as stated above. SLBedit (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - LigaPro is a fully professional league which meets the notability criteria to pass
WP:NFOOTY. Kosack (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Barr

Sharon Barr (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)

Barr had 2 extremely minor, one episode roles on the same TV show. That is the extent of her career that is even mentioned. There are no reliable sources with the article at all. This is just not enough to satisfy the notability requirements for entertainers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, what is wrong with you people ????? I need to ask aggressively because this person is clearly an actor, and she did something funny on cheer and wanted to know more about it. Digging into it more, I see that her name was removed three time.

You need to take it a notch down; there only bytes on a computer, and knowledge about people is as important as everything else. I feel that you admins like to roam. We are not printing paper here.

This person is of interest even if it is one line, the person deserve inclusion Theochino (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her IMDb credits don't come close to satisfying
WP:NACTOR. She's in the Cheers wiki, which is the appropriate place for her. The wording of her article is also identical to what we've got here. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: ACTORSPAM stub which fails notability and GNG. Quis separabit? 23:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vet Talk

Vet Talk (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 for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 12:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:50, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deepsheel Bharat

Deepsheel Bharat (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)

PRODed as "Claims no notability. Fails
WP:GNG." was dePRODed without giving any reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a daily newspaper with 20,000 copies circulation is notable. --Soman (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense? I found several RNI hits online. --Soman (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And would you mind showing some of those RNI or whatever to the community? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Fails notability test.
❯❯❯ Saber 16:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as still not significant enough and this is simply a mere listing, absolutely nothing of genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
talk) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Ed & Bertha Fitzpatrick Arena

Ed & Bertha Fitzpatrick Arena (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)
Try also alternative name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (and modifications such as adding "Turlock", outside the quoted "Warrior Gym"). --do ncr am 06:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails
talk, contribs) 03:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (was "Keep"). I don't care greatly. But it is a public facility, a multipurpose arena which is named constantly in sports schedules and sports news articles, and it is a good function for Wikipedia to provide reference type information about such. There is a long list of college arenas within List of indoor arenas in the United States; we apparently cover these. I see many more hits when Googling on "Warrior Gym". --do ncr am 06:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be reasonable to have an article about every college or university's main sports indoor arena and/or main outdoor stadium. Note, there are articles about dozens or hundreds of minor high school gyms, such as Tate Gymnasium, a dinky one in rural Georgia that just happens to be listed on the National Register, so notability is not questioned. But there's far more usefulness in covering college arenas. --do ncr am 06:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on
talk) 21:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
~~That sounds like it would be reasonable, if the arena was simply used by CSU, Stanislaus. But it is noted to be significant here, apparently, that it is the home arena of the~~
American Basketball Association (21st century). I assume Big Valley Shockwave is notable. If it had an article and linked to the arena, then it would be okay. But it's not necessarily okay to mention Big Valley Shockwave in the CSU Stanislaus article (it would likely get edited out if it were mentioned). So I think Keep is still best for the moment. --do ncr am 22:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It seems to me that the
List of former American Basketball Association teams#B. So it doesn't need an article nor to be mentioned in a merger target article, and Shawn in Montreal's suggestion is fine by me. Using the redirect to hang the appropriate categories upon sounds like a good idea. --do ncr am 00:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources have been presented. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Zimmerman

Jeremy Zimmerman (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
McGeddon (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Snowball - please delete Scarywhitegirl (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fantasy writer. No sources indicate he is notable, just that he is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise move to
WP:DRAFT space so that the article can be worked on more. BOZ (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge 3

Challenge 3 (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 satisfy
film notability guidelines. No references. Unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a clear case of
WP:TOOSOON ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFILM Spiderone 09:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (2017 film)

The Star (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not satisfy
film notability guidelines
as an unreleased film that does not appear to be in principal photography yet and so is not notable.
Issues could be raised about whether this article is promotional in nature also. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how can it be in principal photography when it's an ANIMATED film? Also, according to ComingSoon.net, the film is in production. And how is this article promotional? It's neutral, it's well-sourced, how is the article questionable? Superchunk22 (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the film's already got its very own website. Here it is. http://www.thestarmovie.com/ Not to mention that the film has an official release date, which has actually been moved up from December 8, 2017 to November 10, 2017. That should prove that the film's happening. Superchunk22 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NFF, then you know that you are required to establish that the animated film you have written about "is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." Can you support that? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Alright, there's the link to prove it, and it's from a reliable source. Here it clearly shows that the film is out of the pre-production process. http://www.comingsoon.net/movie/the-star-2017 Superchunk22 (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also another link proving that this article is notable. As you can see, this article is out of the pre-production process. http://www.movieinsider.com/m14507/the-star Superchunk22 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And another link... http://www.movieinsider.com/c411/sony-pictures-animation/status/production Superchunk22 (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There, I made it clear in the article that The Star is currently in production. Superchunk22 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is my article appropriate for Wikipedia or not? I've been waiting for four days to know and I'm kinda getting impatient. :@Robert McClenon:, is my article appropriate? Superchunk22 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -
the Help Desk. You may ask for other editors to participate there or at WP:WikiProject Film. I have offered my opinion, and the AFD will be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Currently only the Wrap and Variety sources are in depth coverage of the topic. The rest are official or passing mention. I would be more comfortable if it had more than two real sources, and I probably wouldn't pass it at AfC in its current condition. Since it does seem to be from some major names, there will probably be more written about it. But if it is kept, no prejudice against renominating if more isn't written. Also nothing against userfying for a few weeks so that it can have some time to get some meat on it's bones.
TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, I've added two sources from the website Patheos that focus entirely on The Star. Superchunk22 (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's coming soon and is on the studio's promotion list, according to this.[[39]] Unlike company press releases, which are frowned upon here, studio press releases indicate there is marketing money being put behind the movie and that it's going to be on the cultural radar soon.Timtempleton (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Romanticism

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

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

A almost promotional article, fails to adhere NPOV and PROMO. CSD was declined. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 03:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and doesn't meet
original research. --Drm310 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of a "an artistic and literary movement". No mention of any members of such a movement. The two sources provided don't even mention "Urban romanticism"
talk) 15:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This article is not about what is commonly understood to be meant by the term Urban Romanticism, which is embracing the idea of urban living in a romantic way. Not sure if this is a joke but
WP:TNT applies here.Timtempleton (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asswehly SC. Not the most useful search term for a redirect, but keeping the content alive in case someone wants to merge it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asswehly (volleyball)

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 coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Non-notable soccer club and some if it actually, it's too
peacocky. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – Per nom. I originally placed an unsourced tag there, and it appears there has been no effort to comply with that. United States Man (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge title info into Asswehly SC#History, and delete the rest. No identifiable media coverage indicating notability. I can't find any articles about the leagues they've won titles in. Perhaps better suited for an article in the Libyan Wikipedia. Timtempleton (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Balloon (Mylar)

Helicopter Balloon (Mylar) (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)

Hoax article with no sources to verify any of the content. DAJF (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW DELETE. Thanks to someone else you verified. Open Source 2.0 (talk) 04:22, 31 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. Pretty clearly a notable topic, and the "delete" !votes have not established that the quality is so hopeless that there's nothing worth salvaging in its current state. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure point

Pressure point (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)

Page is hopeless collection of
WP:OR and content based on bad sources. There may be an encyclopedia article here but this is not even close to it. Needs TNT. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete is WP:OR--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because WP:Deletion is not cleanup. There are prior versions of the article that spend more time talking about the first-aid meaning of the term (that's "pressure point" as in "spots where mainstream evidence-based medical practitioners press to keep someone from bleeding out all over the carpet") than the altmed uses.[40] Alternatively, if your interests run less towards the risks of heavy machinery and more towards pop culture, you could probably build an entire article about the movie trope (there's already one about the Vulcan nerve pinch, which is probably the most well-known fictional pressure point). There is no doubt that this is a notable topic (possibly three of them: first aid + acupuncture-related points + martial arts in pop culture). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

things like page, are what TNT is for. This is not a WP article. Deleting this mess will not stop anybody from recreating a decent article. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant line in
WP:TNT is this: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history)" (emphasis added). Even if you believe that the current version is useless, the claim that all the version in history are also useless is demonstrably untrue, as I have linked to an earlier version that is not useless. (In fact, it may be too useful, as it veers slightly into how-to territory.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
the version you linked to is useless; it is entirely unsourced (or "cites" unreliable links) and would have to be completely checked against reliable sources; it is not a valid starting point for anything. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because having an empty article isn't good. The article can be recreated if someone takes the time to research it properly and use proper sources.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is an important term. AFD is not for clean-up. Any call for wp:TNT acknowledges the validity of the topic and is
wp:disruptive, should cause an automatic closure of the AFD with a Speedy Keep decision. --do ncr am 02:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acknowledge that the article is weak and disagree that calling for
WP:TNT is disruptive and not a valid reason. However, I think the topic is notable and is improvable from its current form.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I notice that an effort to clean-up is underway. My personal feeling is that pressure point fighting is a joke but that pressure points do exist - I enjoy using them myself. I hope the clean-up (and this AfD) don't reflect strong opinions one way or the other.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just disqualified your vote. That you believe they exist or not is entirely irrelevant.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not at all - my vote was based on the opinion that the article was recoverable and a notable topic. My qualification was only a hope that the clean-up is not colored by opinion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the weight of your vote is not measured by the strength of your opinion, but how it relates to reliable sources. What you made clear is that your vote is not at all reliant on sources, but on your personal opinion and anecdote.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure that "clean-up is underway", unless we're counting CFCF blanking almost half the sentences, including sentences that he knows to be accurate and verifiable (e.g., "The brain is a sensitive
organ which floats in cerebrospinal fluid
") as "clean up".

I think that it would be helpful to decide whether this needs to be
WP:SPLIT. The recent focus for the article has been martial arts, but that's not the only kind of pressure point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
While verifiable, there is no indication that it is at all relevant or related to the topic at hand.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I think there's something notable here, between the cultural and even quasi-scientific coverage, and that the medical and martial arts contexts can coexist. See here.[[41]] I also looked at the older info that was blanked and think it should have stayed templated for citation needed rather than blanked.Timtempleton (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Original closure was reverted. Leaving unclosed for someone else to close this AfD as they determine consensus. -- Dane ^talk 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_December_31&oldid=1142623204"