Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 December	10 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. Orphaned AfD from some six years ago, that never belonged at AfD in the first place (

(non-admin closure) jp×g 21:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ulpiano Colom

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

If we can delete this redirect page, we can move the page that is incorrectly named (the one that has the diacritical mark in the title) to this page. There may be a better way to do this, but I don't know it. The deletion process seems like the hard way. Banjohunter (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the article several years ago and can't remember why on Earth I (incorrectly) added the diacritical mark to the article title.

I agree with Banjohunter that perhaps we can delete the redirect so the article can be moved to a title without the diacritical mark. Mercy11 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way to request this in the future is by tagging the redirect
WP:G6. I will just take care of it. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, just FYI, you didn't list this AfD correctly or someone would have taken care of this in December. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:35, 6 March 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advent (AlanAsound album)

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

No indication of notability per

WP:NALBUM. The article is unsourced, and the only sources I could find were on social media or YouTube. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
talk, contribs) 01:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as depends upon a page that should also be deleted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:57, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HAGGIS

)

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

This programming language fails

talk, contribs) 23:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep So what? I would hope that no-one ever uses this horrible language. It is a bad language, badly designed for a bad purpose. That said, and where its notability stems from, the Scottish education authority has decided to impose it as a standard language upon all Scottish exam students. This is regrettable, but also notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The programming language is notable, no matter how terrible it is. -- Dane ^talk 01:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly significant and well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansionist nationalism

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

Not an actual form of nationalism in more formal academic studies of nationalism, instead being a term that sometimes appears in basic textbooks to refer to militant nationalists. In order to verify my view of the lack of significance I checked a large social science academic journal database and yielded no results in the formal literature on nationalism; indeed, expansionist nationalism is merely a way of referring to irredentism. A search of google finds many sources, all of which are copies of the original wikipedia page RememberToForget (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term seems to be used in multiple published sources according to Google Books. —
talk) 05:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Clarification The nominatior or User:RememberToForget has changed the reason for deletion after I had preferred keeping the article most likely to contradict my keep reason. A simple reply of argument would have been better rather than violate
talk) 06:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Irredentism, per nom: expansionist nationalism is merely a way of referring to irredentism. The phrase is sometimes used by commentators, mostly those who are agin it; but we want one good article on the topic, not two flawed ones: Noyster (talk), 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the premises of the nominator are false. A simple search at Google Books (see 1600 results) is a clear indication that this is not an unknown topic. These are also most definitely not copies of the Wikipedia page. With regards to definition, the term Irredentism refers to the notion of re-acquiring lost territories. On the other hand, "expansionist nationalism" refers to a territorial expansion driven by notions of national superiority (or destiny).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MarshalN20 argument. Pahlevun (talk) 16:30, 15 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) st170e^talk 01:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Office space planning

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

Wikipedia is not a guide per

talk) 05:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I did edit this article at some stage and have no problem if it is judged to be non-compliant and removed. However, it attracts approximately 13,000 hits per year, so it appears there is need for some form of information on the subject. There are also links from this to 8 other articles on Wikipedia and these could lose readership potential if and when it is removed.

Sidpickle (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I'm quite surprised there isn't a general
WP:OR based on original legislation. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think an article is needed about this subject. There is considerable OR in the article but it still passes
WP:GNG. A maintenance tag is enough...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Russell (disc jockey)

)

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

One source from a rock music website, has indepth coverage of this DJ. Otherwise a legendary DJ from an English speaking country doesn't have much independent sources. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Easy Keep - while not quite a John Peel, is a very notable individual in his field. Also a lot of mentions if you search for "Tom Russell + radio" (once you weed out those for the other Tom Russell). And his just published autobiography already has RS mentions, such as [1], [2], [3].

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first is non-rs and the other two seem to be advertising his book ("Now on sale for just £14.99") AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to cite a prior RS discussion to support your non-rs claim. The second two sources are RS (the first of them, though tabloid, is ok for this sort of usage); book reviews normally state prices. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in his field. I think it passes
WP:MUSICBIO...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Major sources have already been identified. I see no reason to delete here. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D&B Nation

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

No claim of notability. They have a lot of YouTube subscribers, but they don't appear to have

significant coverage in reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:02, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar DeRosa

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR. Clearly does not meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia biographies. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, not yet notable by either criteria. His short film seems notable enough, but
WP:RS. He's had only minor roles so far in a few other films, such as Sharkansas Women's Prison Massacre, oh my, it's not easy to get ahead in acting, is it. Good luck to him. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 02:05, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MultiCharts

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

After seven years nobody has added evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Leaning to keep. We don't delete articles that don't display evidence of notability, we delete articles for which no evidence can be found. It is easy to find significant coverage of this trading platform in the trade press, for example [4] [5] [6] plus a lot of other coverage on leaprate.com, which is a news publication for traders. That said, I have always objected to using trade publications for establishing notability. I started a discussion on this, which never really resolved anything, archived here (my username was Amatulić at the time). My arguments there still stand, in my opinion. But as long as we are using trade publications to establish notability, this article would be a keeper. I'll mention that, as a former trader myself, MultiCharts is one of the dominant trading platforms in the market. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the article is still not in fact satisfactory for actual substance and the sources listed above are in fact simply trivial tech blogs, ones I've never actually heard of so that says something, simply nothing amounting to a genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"That says something" how? Conversely, it's just as valid to say "I've heard of them, so that says something." Questions about the reliability of sources like Leaprate should be taken to
WP:RSN. I don't see anything to suggest they are unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable software used by share traders. It passes
WP:NSOFT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Trigg

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

Un-notable musician whose claim to fame is being featured in YouTube video

reliable sources, just passing mentions. No charting singles/albums. No albums on major record labels. Most refs on the article are not reliable sources. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, doesn't pass GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG without any coverage in reliable sources. -- Dane ^talk 02:06, 13 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 Speedily deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult Brand Consulting Ltd.

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

No good sources or anything note-worthy here. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to locate any sources regarding this, Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:12, 13 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 Withdrawn. (

talk) 03:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Draft:Christian Bischoff

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

Abandoned year-old draft by single-purpose editor; if subject is truly notable, a willing editor could easily recreate this sub-stub. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please close this AfD. Sometimes when I click on XfD, it still saves as AfD. I can re-nominate for XfD after closure, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:44, 9 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Cancer Research

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

The WP page contains no significant content, recently displayed copyright information copied from the organization website, and is being used apparently for promotion duplicating the home page.

WP:NOTHOSTING applies. Zefr (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree that the page should be deleted - there is a back and forth between forces slandering NFCR leadership and NFCR staff providing updates that are nothing more than copied content from their website. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete - refs are all
WP:SPS or passing mentions - this page was created to promote the charity Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NOTWEBHOST. Promotionalism. -- Dane ^talk 02:20, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken James (Canadian actor)

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

Delete. Poorly sourced biography of an actor "best known" for minor bit parts, which is referenced only to

reliable source coverage about his acting, but no such coverage has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His most notable role (Ancil Hoffman in Cinderellaman) is not big enough to meet our fairly substantial list of the cast (25 roles are listed there), which shows that he just has not had multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 02:23, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule (film)

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

I had some difficulty weeding through the Google results for something with this generic a name, but I didn't find anything to make me believe it passes GNG. Seems to be a very small-time film with no reviews in major publications. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as it fails
WP:NFILM at this time. It looks like it is a early film for the makers and is making the circuit of small film festivals. If it ever achieves significant coverage than it can be recreated. I also tried to find an article that it might be redirected to but came up empty. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, the film is too obscure and non-notable. Fred Dobbs 2017 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:NFILM. -- Dane ^talk 02:24, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shellanoo Group

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

The article has serious neutrality issues and while there is sourcing, it would require a substantial rewrite in order to be encyclopedic. As it stands right now, it only highlights the accomplishments of the company.

WP:TNT seems like the best option for this. Also, the 82.81.x, 79.182.x, and 2.53.x IPs are all on the same source range associated with Xparta (talk · contribs) (based on behavioral evidence). These socks have been very active at the related article for O. D. Kobo. (Relevant SPI here) -- Dane ^talk 21:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TNT. Largely concur with nom that this is not salvageable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as there's literally no lifelines here since it's all blatant advertising hence policy never negotiates with it. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above; fails
WP:Corp and is a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 15:11, 14 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka clan

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

I couldn't verify its notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence let alone notability Spiderone 10:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not a hoax as suspected by Spiderone. I can confirm the existence of this clan but unfortunately there aren't any valid secondary sources to confirm the notability. I really wanted the article to stay but lack of sources makes it hard for me to make a case for the same. Only sources available are jatland.com,theinfolist.com...Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable clan. I can't think of any valid
ATD either. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:20, 13 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.

Chaudhry Aslam Khan

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~I myself had created this page citing some valid sources. But a flurry of editors added original research and with little regard to~~

~~WP:TNT~~...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Withdrawn by nominator. By taking into consideration of the opinions of other editors here, I withdraw the nomination...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a content dispute rather than a reason for deletion. If it is necessary to rewrite an article then that can be done without deleting it first. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the editor at IP address 86.17.222.157. We don't delete an article because its creator doesn't like the way other people have edited it, so that he or she can restore it to his or her referred version: see
talk) 20:41, 10 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rinconcult

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

This seller has been profiled in a couple of places as cited, though I'm not sure that they are more than blogs that don't qualify as

WP:CORP. Largoplazo (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet
WP:CORP. Unable to find any significant secondary references. TheCrazedBeast talk 18:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite blatant enough for speedy, and damning enough with WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McConnell

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He's a popular tech journalist in Canada who breaks a lot of stories and makes frequent appearances in mainstream media here, but people won't know him unless they are actually from here. Was trying to find more information after seeing him on TV and there wasn't a central place that had all of this, so in my opinion a page should be warranted. The6Editor (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the reasons you cited are valid reasons for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please read
WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage about him, not by being the bylined author of media coverage about other things. But right across the board, the latter kind of "referencing" is what we have here for media sourcing — all of the sources where he's the subject are either
WP:JOURNALIST, but nothing here passes that standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ubtao

Ubtao (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair cop, the article was written in a more laissez-faire time, but can't really stand on its own now. Delete, says I. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
List of Forgotten Realms deities, unless some substantial third-party sourcing is identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to
List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
List of Forgotten Realms deities as the best target for this. -- Dane ^talk 02:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
List of Forgotten Realms deities. Minor fictional deity, with no widespread notability. He's already present on the current list of Forgotten Realms deities, but the entry is pretty brief there, and a bit more of the info on this page could be merged to it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manjeeven Grewal

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

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

Non notable actress, Found this mention however that's the only thing that comes up, Fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable actress. fails
WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG.Rogermx (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:38, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hull Kingston Radio

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

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

Non notable radio station, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is definitely not notable. -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham to London in 5 minutes

Birmingham to London in 5 minutes (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)

In my opinion this subject of this article does not meet wikipedia's General notability guidelines. Did brief search, not able to find significant secondary sources covering the subject. Sassmouth (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is to be deleted, can a copy be sent to my draft space please? There is a number of films that could be included, all created by
Nightfury 13:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't believe WP has every considered corporate promotional films/videos notable in themselves, and only if they otherwise satisfy the
WP:GNG, neither of which are evident here. It may, however, be possible to satisfy those criteria for an article that aggregates BritRail films as a whole oeuvre (as it were). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Eggishorn. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail the
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:46, 13 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 prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Luanne Hunt

Luanne Hunt (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)

Borderline notability with weak (non-independent) sources (PR etc) combined with promo article written by blocked paid editor. Unsure if meets one of requirements of
WP:MUSICIAN, but PROD suggested AfD, done. Widefox; talk 11:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems pretty clear from several sources that she had a top hit in Europe. I think that satisfies the notability requirement for music Rogermx (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 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 - Although the sources were refuted the discussion pretty much ended straight after that, Overall consensus is to keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Smart doorbell

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

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

This article was Speedy Deleted on 2 December 2016 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic,
Smart objects) at 17:29. Just two hours later, at 19:34, Virtualerian created it again. It is still a duplicate of the existing article, and its re-creation is disruptive. Gronk Oz (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt. No notability found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As noted below, this claim is false. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see:

The 5 Best Smart Locks and Doorbells For Your Home

Gate is a smart lock with an integrated video doorbell

This smart doorbell doesn't have a security camera

Ring Smart Doorbell review

Research of an envisoned smart doorbell

Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above sources are a classical example of churnalism generated by a PR release. Purely promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
That's a classic example of not actually reading the evidence. Source #5, for example, is a paper from a conference; not churnalism at all. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how is this not notable. The topic is widely covered in the news, as well as in books and even architecture journals (per Google Scholar). This topic deserve an article of its own. --Virtualerian (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is notable and there are many sources that talk about it (as listed above). -- Dane ^talk 02:48, 13 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 Moved to userspace, sorry. It's not ready, but he did show me some newspaper links the other day that looked valid. DS (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorcan Morris

Lorcan Morris (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)

Golfer/Caddy that fails
WP:NGOLF. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few news articles about him, and most of them minor newspapers.
fiɲimi 20:09, 9 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon's kiss

Poseidon's kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be nothing more than a non-notable neologism. A Google News search failed to find anything more to support it. For confirmation, I ran the topic past WikiProject Sanitation to see whether they thought it was worth salvaging, along with the similar article on Witch's kiss - that discussion is here and there was no support to keep the articles. Gronk Oz (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but a unnotable neologism. Neither of the two sources being used to support the article mention the phrase at all, and upon searches, the only places I can find mentioning it are Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally not noteworthy, just some slang term, not relevant for Wikipedia.
talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable neologism. -- Dane ^talk 02:51, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Witch's kiss

Witch's kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be nothing more than a non-notable neologism. A Google News search failed to find anything more to support it. For confirmation, I ran the topic past WikiProject Sanitation to see whether they thought it was worth salvaging, along with the similar article on Poseidon's kiss - that discussion is here and there was no support to keep the articles. Gronk Oz (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally not noteworthy, just some slang term, not relevant for Wikipedia.
talk) 20:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as an unnotable neologism. Of the two sources used to support the information, one of them doesn't mention the phrase at all, and the other is a "Top 15" humor article, which is hardly a reliable source. The only other places that I can find using the term is Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agrees with above, an unnotable neologism Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. -- Dane ^talk 02:52, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchay Goswami

Sanchay Goswami (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 actor has only one movie. No other indication of notability. PROD was removed without any reason. Coderzombie (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a case of
WP:GNG. A quick online Google and news search throws up only single piece of info, about him being cast in a poorly received film. Hence, delete. Jean Stair (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails notability — billinghurst sDrewth 07:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 20:22, 9 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. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rekze Laboratories

Rekze Laboratories (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)

It's quite clear this only exists to advertise the company and thus violates policy WP:NOT and simply none of it establishes actual substance since it's all clear PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure it is clearly promotional, but it does not seem to be notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG and appears promotional. -- Dane ^talk 02:56, 13 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Club

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Forex Club

Articles for deletion/Forex Club (2nd nomination)

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

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

Procedural nomination. An earlier version of the article was deleted a couple of months ago, but the author of the latest incarnation has (reasonably) argued that it differs enough that
Iridescent 19:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This article is a translation of the Russian version. In the Russian Wikipedia this page has been recognized as a notable. This article was written based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not "press releases and entries in databases"): Vedomosti, Kommersant, Interfax, etc. Andrey Broker (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though better written it has the same problems as the last iteration of it. It consists almost entirely of company announcements and data. The criticism is new but also is just a list of announcements and data. The fact that there is a Russian version of the page does not establish notability. It seems to consist of just a Russian web site (if you visit the web site and choose e.g. English you get taken to the web site of an entirely different company), and fall well short of
WP:ORG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no more notability for en:wp purposes than last time - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm everything I said in August since this is literally still trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to this source. This article wrote the Russian economist Andrey Buzdalin, this is forex market research (about FC is written very much). Another source — Kommersant, in the text are also many encyclopaedic information on the history and activities of the company. The company definitely notable (this is proved by the sources in Russian). Perhaps article style needs some work, I beg you to help me with this, because the English language is foreign to me. Andrey Broker (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement on deletion. Light2021 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Spear

Micah Spear (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
WP:SPA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I concur, everything is especially simply unsuitable or simply not convincing as it is, none of it amounts to genuine substance regardless of anything that could be insinuated about this. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 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) 19:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mentions in promotional media do not establish notability. "artwork has been featured in publications such as …" does not rise to the level of "substantial part of a significant exhibition", "significant critical attention" or "permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Fails
talk) 22:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:59, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group urban

Group urban (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 term created by "The Commercial Press" of China, that only seems to be used in publications by that publisher. No
independent indication of notability. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more independent descriptions are included. This concept is widely accepted by Chinese media, and widely used in urban planning in China. Also it is in the textbooks of geography in China. It is a special concept developed to suit the special urban development derived from complicated administrative issues. Groverlynn (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:
talk) 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

In that case, you shouldn't have tossed
talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and
talk) 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:18, 2 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) 19:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- seems to be derived from a single paper, and the article quality is poor so
WP:TNT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:52, 11 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. Per the sources provided, which were not convincingly refuted. Also, the page being poorly written is not an issue for AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Moon

Marion Moon (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 still confirm my PROD because there's no inherited notability from the BBC because of the campaign and thus there's still nothing for genuine independent notability and substance. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabia Salihu Sa'id is an example of this. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in the Daily Nation is adequate. Note, by the way, that this is also the name of Buzz Aldrin's mother and so this should certainly be a blue link. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Daily Nation

Voice of America

Daily Nation

Daily Nation

Daily Nation

keep sources pass
WP:GNG --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Referencing a few promotional pieces hardly amount to "Significant coverage" to establish encyclopaedic notability. Lame Name (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Tagishsimon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is under development and is now supported by valid additional sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No one here has actually considered policy WP:NOT which explicitly says We Are Not LinkedIn and that:s exactly why this article exists, as a personal job listing, and hence is against policy. Comments such as "But improve it" or "Sources exist" still mean nothing if policy is involved and simply because there's attention from anything or anyone is not an inheritance of notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, can you please state how this article is a personal job listing? Are you purposefully ignoring the sources brought to this AfD? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough to pass GNG and there is also a source from the US Government here, though it's largely an interview. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm improving the article and have found more sources, including The Star Kenya. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets
available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. receiving a grant from USAID for small project is not reason for notability, no matter how much of a story is made of it. The GNG has to be read with judgment, that there has to be something to be notable for , before we can concern ourselves wwith whether there is enough press about it. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The grant is only part of her story. She is notable for coming up with an innovative agribusiness in Kenya, which has already changed the agriculture landscape (see the 2016 article) and she is covered significantly over time in the news in various RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have established in the past, regardless of gender or country, that these are not independently notable regardless of publication (because that itself would violate our established policies), so this AfD shouldn't become unnecessarily political. If we start compromising with such policy, we're damned. As it is, the sources themselves are noticeably interviews so it's damning for us to accept them simply because "but they're known news publications!", regardless. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, SwisterTwister. This is not political, it's about policy and doing due-diligence when you are participating in an AfD. The subject of this article has enough RS over time to pass GNG. Your assertion that the the "sources themselves are noticeably interviews" is false and you might want to go back through the sources. I'll go ahead and describe the sources for anyone else reading.

Daily Nation 2014, not an interview and the bulk of the article is about Moon.

Daily Nation 2014, not an interview and most of the article is devoted to her.

Daily Nation 2016, a portion of the article is about Moon and it is not an interview.

The Star 2016, not an interview and the bulk of the article is about Moon and her business.

Business Daily 2016 not an interview and the bulk of the article is about Moon and her company.

Daily Nation 2016 This one is an interview, but the lede of the article is not.

Let's go through the web pages.

InfoDev 2014 This is a blog supported by World Bank Group and is not an interview.

Global Entrepreneurship Summit Moon is profiled on this page and this is not an interview.

Feed the Future is not independent of Moon and is an interview.

LACAfrica, this is a profile about Moon and not an interview.

How We Made It In Africa 2014, this is a blog which discusses Moon and her work and is not an interview, though it quotes her extensively.

From these sources, you can see that of 10, only 2 are full interviews with one article having a lot of quotes. I am dismayed to see a Wikipedian misrepresenting facts when arguing in an AfD. I have shown that there are 5 reliable news sources which are independent of the subject and are non-trivial mentions. The Web sites are not all independent, but some are reliable and can be used to verify facts.
WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I have shown this above. Please do engage with the facts of the discussion, not with vague insinuations that I am making this "political." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP The Marion Moon article easily passes
General notability guidelines with the media finding her significantly interesting to write about repeatedly over the years. There is a genre that attracts people who find it interesting to read and write about women who are working in innovative STEM positions in developing countries. This is part of a larger genre that researches, investigates, and writes about gender issues. The bottomline is that the reliable sources find Moon "worthy of notice" and we therefor we should keep the article. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Sandstein 12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Angel (Dungeons & Dragons)

Angel (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones.
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. While beings called "angels" did appear in Dragon Magazine prior to AD&D, the article indicates that the versions that went on to be used ongoing in D&D did not appear until the AD&D Monster Manual II. Either way, though, the article should not be kept on its own. As the nominator stated, there are no reliable, non-primary sources discussing the D&D versions of angels in any sort of depth. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 12 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
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Sandstein 12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Giant eagle (Dungeons & Dragons)

Giant eagle (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones.
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. A very minor D&D monster. While the usual searches do bring up a few hits, none of them can be used as reliable sources, and are merely things like fan-wikis or product descriptions. All of the standard information on the creature is already included in the target article, so there really isn't much else here that would be needed to be merged.64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Sandstein 12:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (Dungeons & Dragons)

Genie (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones.
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. While some of the individual sub-species of genie appeared in previous editions (and are included on those editions respective monster indexes), the blanket term of "Genie" to categorize them all was not first used until 2nd edition AD&D, so that would be the most appropriate place to merge. A stand alone article is out of the question, however, as there are no reliable, non-primary sources talking about them. The only hits during searches are for things like fan-sites and product descriptions. Its just another case of a well-known, pre-existing myth being used in D&D. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I mentioned, while some of the creatures that would later be categorized as a type of genie (namely the djinn and efreeti) appeared in the first edition of D&D (and are already included in the appropriate list here on Wikipedia), the actual usage of the concept of the "Genie" being an overarching type of being with four subtypes didn't come about until 2nd Edition AD&D, which I why I suggested that as the more appropriate place for a merger. It would be difficult to merge into the List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), because, since they didn't exist as a concept at the time, we wouldn't be able to add in the standard information that is present for the monsters on that list, such as the book they first appeared in, page numbers, etc. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, or possibly merge to
Genie in popular culture. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:03, 15 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). Sandstein 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoul (Dungeons & Dragons)

Ghoul (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones.
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). While this creature does have one third-party soruce (The "Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies"), the actual text talking about them in the book is very brief, and is nothing more than a summary of its Monstrous Manual entry. By itself, this is not enough to establish notability, and as I'm finding no addition sources, it should not be a stand alone article. The standard info on the creature is already present in the target article, so a merge isn't really necessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the For Dummies source is an indicator of notability, or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a monster list, or possibly merge to Ghouls in popular culture. The For Dummies book counts for something, but as it's a licensed game guide, probably not a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Giant (Dungeons & Dragons)

Giant (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 the references are to first-party sources, i.e., to game guides and other material published by the game's various copyright holders. Third-party sourcing is lacking both in the article as it stands and in my attempts to find better ones.
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage independent of the subject. Despite the longevity and number of submissions, does not appear to be notable under the general or specific guidelines. Not significantly better-sourced since the wp:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: also created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#RfC_on_Notability_of_D.26D_Standard_Creatures Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), though some of the information on the copious amounts of related monsters included here can possible be merged out to various appropriate articles, if needed. While this article does have one non-primary source (the "For Dummies" book), the problems with using it to support notability is threefold: First, its only about one, single sub-type of giant, not the concept of D&D Giants in general. Second, its only a paragraph length amount of text that just summarizes the info from the Monstrous Manual. And third, as the only reliable, non-primary source I can find, it isn't enough to establish the notability needed for a stand alone article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator spammed 6 AfD nominations in 4 minutes, suggesting that they did not perform a proper
WP:BEFORE style search before each nomination. For instance, the Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies book is an independent source, referenced in the article itself. --Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It is possible to fully satisfy
WP:BEFORE prior to making multiple nominations especially when, as in this case, the articles in question are all about similar topics. In fact, the nomination mentions that I made my own attempt to find more sources. Exactly one miniscule "For Dummies" reference doesn't satisfy the significant or independent criteria. I also realized that multiple nominations could prove difficult and hence created the above-referenced RfC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the For Dummies and White Dwarf sources are independent, and an indicator of a start of notability for the topic. BOZ (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ.
talk) 18:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ, GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources shown meet the GNG. Additionally, there are many third-party sources which build on the DnD Giant template. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable with the independent sources. -- Dane ^talk 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems like there are some secondary sources here, and the article would be a useful place to merge articles on less notable giant-type monsters; some of these will have secondary coverage, adding to the coverage of giants overall. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tropical Depression Eight (2016)

Tropical Depression Eight (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Non-notable storm with no notable impacts Jdcomix (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose;
Tropical Depression One (2009) had similar minimal impacts as Eight and it has an article, so why shouldn't this one? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Going to go ahead and redirect that one as it breaks the rule saying that storms not having impacts shouldn't have articles. Jdcomix (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcomix: I checked the WikiProject page and it doesn't say anything about that. Not sure where you are getting that from. Also, several other storms have articles and they didn't impact land at all. Plus, TD 8 had non-tropical origins, as stated in it's TCR which was released on Tuesday, so it is SOMEWHAT notable for that (same thing for Alex but that was more notable for its formation date). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for the article to exist but why was this nominated for deletion? Are you suggesting that the there should be no mention of TD 8 anywhere on Wikipedia? Also, there is no "impact rule".
^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm suggesting we merge it to 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. Jdcomix (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, just post on a talk page with a header suggesting a merge. Because generally speaking, in this project, the deletion of something means it should not exist on wiki at all. The reason is because storm article are sub-articles of the season, and when there's enough viable content (not just fluff), they are split off.
^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Other stuff exists is not a valid argument; the notability of a storm is determined independently of others.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Impacts • Synopsis) 01:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm currently working on the subsection for Bermuda impacts while the depression was in its precursor stages. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. There was nothing independently remarkable about this storm - the impacts were minimal and it wasn't even named.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, TD One in 2009 had minimal impacts and wasn't named yet it doesn't have an article, so why is TD Eight exempt from this? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TD One at least formed in the off-season and is of higher quality than this article though.
^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into season article: the section there is comprehensive enough, and impacts in Bermuda can simply be added there instead. ~ KN2731 {talk} 02:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article gives no compelling reason to be this detailed on a meteorological event that lasted a few days, and will not likely generate any significant studies or literature. The impacts should be merged into the season section. As for TD 1 in 2009, it was more meteorologically significant for being in the off-season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and merged it into the season article, this can be closed now. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 09:21, 11 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientillion

Scientillion (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 indication of notability. A web search reveals no RS coverage. Article created by an SPA. Rentier (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - May be
WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Agree that this looks like it could be
WP:TOOSOON. -- Dane ^talk 03:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete - I can confirm that the database the article is about is actually is useful since I am using it myself for my daily research and used it a lot for writing my PHD thesis. So I think it should stay. However, it might be extended a bit.|talk]] 14:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.196.72 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Group, Inc.

The Digital Group, Inc. (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:ORGDEPTH. The only sources that I am able to find are press releases and routine business listings. - Mr X 18:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any claim of notability or any of the required sourcing in the article, nor can I find anything better in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:09, 13 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. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleek

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

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

Delete. Completely
WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't see any reliable sources or notability here, additionally the Lead Award is unable to be sourced. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete move Sleek (disambiguation) over the title space. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 15 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fusion

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

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

Delete. Article about a science textbook, with no claimed or sourced evidence of notability. As written, this just states that the book exists, sources that existence solely to its own catalogue profile on the website of its own publisher, and then proceeds to serve as a
reliable source coverage about it in media, independent of its own authors or publishers, is present to verify it as notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated above. I also just removed a statement about one of the authors having a Nobel, which seems patently untrue. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can find no evidence that the subject meets
WP:NBOOK.Ajpolino (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Definitely
WP:COATRACK material. -- Dane ^talk 03:11, 13 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. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renfrew golf course N.S.

Renfrew golf course N.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)

Delete. Advertorially toned article about a golf club, not sourced to any
primary source website about itself, and its location on Google Maps. As always, Wikipedia is not a free tourist directory on which every golf course that exists at all is automatically entitled to an article just because its own website and a map verify that it exists; a golf course gets an article when media coverage about the golf course can be added to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - a "small", "9 hole" golf course, as stated in the lead itself, which makes it
egregiously spam. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable course. Tewapack (talk) 15:19, 10 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 Copyvio = gone. DS (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doktrin perasingan kuasa

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

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

One of several articles with copyright violations, however this one was deleted from the Malaysia wiki for Copyright infringement and is identical to that same deleted copyvio article. cached article: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cDapAsDB_nMJ:https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doktrin_perasingan_kuasa+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doktrin_perasingan_kuasa Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 16:55, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterwave Inc.

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

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

Non-notable software company. No significant independent references, and Google search finds nothing of significance. I originally made the article into a redirect to Notakto, but the author restored it as an article. Looking further at the two wikilinked games, Notakto and Hackenbush, it turns out that they are generic games invented by other people, of which Counterwave markets a version. So I think Delete is the appropriate action. MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; no notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete: the opinions expressed below are all in agreement, and now that the page author has been blocked for sockpuppetry, any chance of improvement seems remote. I'll undelete and move to Draft namespace for any legitimate editor to work on, if requested though. Nick (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Executive power based on Federal Constitution of Malaysia

Executive power based on Federal Constitution of Malaysia (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)

Reads like an
test page. Close paraphrasing to another source, likely point of view-ish from what I understand. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete while I gather that this is supposed to be some sort of summary of the Constitution of Malaysia as it pertains to executive power, I agree with the nominator that it's pretty much just a personal essay. While the topic itself may be notable, this current version needs to be
nuked from orbit. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete An essay, and it's a complete mess.
Best to delete it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per
talk) 06:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hamamatsu Kite Festival

Hamamatsu Kite Festival (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 don't think people are devoting enough attention to this article. Its simplewiki equivalent is much better and I suppose that we could expand the article from there, but in its current state this enwiki entry should be insufficient to remain as its own. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of content and sources in the Japanese and Simple versions with which to expand this article. The fact that it doesn't get much attention, or that the Simple version is better, is not a reason to delete this one. I have found significant coverage in the following books
Brokered Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Migrants in Japan, 2002, page:118, ISBN:9780801488085.

The art of the Japanese kite, 1980, Tal Streeter, Page:67

San Francisco, San Francisco Magazine, Incorporated, 1976

I think this is enough to meet
WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As the nominator said, this can be expanded with sourced content from the Simple English Wikipedia, and it can also be expanded with content from the sources in the Japanese Wikipedia article and those found by Sarahj2107. The fact that that hasn't been done yet isn't a reason to delete the article - it is in fact far less likely that that will ever be done if we delete it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the sources abroad this looks like it passes
WP:NOTCLEANUP, this article should be kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Passes
WP:GNG - just needs a bit of expansion and elbow grease. -- Dane ^talk 03:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santokh Singh (Music Director)

Santokh Singh (Music Director) (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:MUSICBIO. seriously unremarkable career producing non notable albums LibStar (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna may

Shanna may (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:BLP-issues. Youtuber with 7000 subs. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:BLP and has been nominated for SD three times today! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

LDAP injection

LDAP injection (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 speedied this unsourced contextless and WP:How-to article as non-notable, but admin Spinningspark contests that, so I've brought it here for the community to decide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good enough for a start class article. Let's take those complaints one at time:

Unsourced. Yes, the page was unsourced, but there are dozens of books on LDAP and network security that can easily verify all the material in the article.

Contextless. The opening sentence of the article clearly states that this is in the context of
web based applications
. For anyone who does not understand those terms, it is only necessary to add those wikilinks to the article.

How-to. I see no evidence that the page is a HOWTO, nor has the proposer offered any, despite being asked on his talk page.

Non-notable. As point #1, there are dozens of books;

Practical Spring LDAP has a page on subject

Security Strategies in Web Applications and Social Networking has a three-paragraph section

Network Security Assessment has at least a page (I can't access it all)

Distributed Systems Security 3-paragraph section

Network and Application Security Section running for most of a page

PCI Compliance: The Definitive Guide more than a page

The Web Application Hacker's Handbook five pages

Numerous other books have a paragraph or two (see the search results at point #1). There are also scholarly papers on the subject:

"LDAP Injection Techniques", IEEE

"LDAP Injection & Blind LDAP Injection"

Literally hundreds of other papers at least mention this form of attack, if not discuss it in depth. Additionally, the Web Application Security Consortium has a lengthy article on its website. SpinningSpark 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A
WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. A notable topic and an article that can be improved suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plainly. Spinningspark's list of reliable sources is more than enough to settle the question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Bagdi

Sumit Bagdi (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)

Mistakenly Created Master aakash (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 12:44, 9 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadget Flow

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Gadget Flow

Articles for deletion/The Gadget Flow (2nd nomination)

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

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

Non notable advertisement like article created by an SPA who edit like a pro, undoubtedly not a new user. The references are highly promotional primary sources, press release and insignificant. Previously deleted via a
Draft - Mar11 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Changing my Keep to a comment per Mar11 (talk) on sources like CNN. While CNN is definitely a reliable source and clearly has editorial oversight the article seems to be more based on a release. See my note below on getting this over to the DRAFT.JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Multiple reliable sources (huffington post, the next web, fortune, CNN and several others) to support.JanisWilloughby (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:
XfD
.

Comment - This CNN and the Huffington Post articles are duplicate of each other. Which means it is either a press release or a paid news. This highly promotional piece of article is asking readers to visit their website because they are recruiting new persons in their company. It can't be an independent source. - Mar11 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the history of this article, in its present version it is well sourced and well written. I believe it passes the
~~notability guidelines, especially according to this reference. Bradv 03:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Comment - I think you're right. Mar11 (talk) good eye on digging in to the sources. I'm going to get this content over to the DRAFT version. And await secondary sources. Since you're interested in the page I'll ping you and one of these other editors for a review before it goes live. Plan? JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The source is a highly promotional
WP:INTERVIEW. Not acceptable for notability or as an RS. - Mar11 (talk
)

Delete. After further consideration, I am changing my !vote. I was willing to forgive the poor behaviour because the article looked good, but on further investigation it appears to be a ruse. The other commenters are correct - the sources are all interviews or press releases. Bradv 02:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. A typical "startup blurb" on an
run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability or significance. 06:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk
)

Comment - plenty of indications with coverage somewhat organized | here JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was canvassed to vote "keep" on this article (diff) by
talk) 20:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Same as Waggie above, I was
talk) 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Sources are promotional (Greek CNN, Huffington Post, etc.) or primary (interviews e.g. The Next Web). Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sources are apparently press releases, so there is no RS for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DGG ( talk ) see above on Mar11's good eye on this. I might ping you on this one if I see other RS come out. Maybe just "too soon" though the site isn't a small deal at 15m views/mo. It's on its way to being eBay, seemingly. And I do think I wrote this well.JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On second thought why don't we just flag it for possible / not possibly meeting the Notability Guideline? I don't think they update their press page. Gnews shows other more recent media and then there appears to be ongoing converage, for example on December 2nd: [7]. Flag it?JanisWilloughby (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing Forbes here [8] Suggest flagging vs delete.JanisWilloughby (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tomorrow. Hope. Goodbye.

Tomorrow. Hope. Goodbye. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Completely un-referenced article. In regards to the band,
talk) 22:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per.
WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 1 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 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asking Alexandria. The EP is mentioned in that article and it is a plausible search term. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Green

Jess Green (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)

Green was mayor of American Fork, Utah. At less than 30,000 people this is not a truly significant city at the level to make the mayor default notable. The sources are not either significant enough or enough focused on Green to demonstrate he passes the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors do not get an automatic presumption of notability under
WP:GNG, and if that's not already present then a mayor gets the benefit of the doubt only if the place is considerably larger than American Fork. But the volume of sourcing shown here is not enough to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 November 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, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and established consensus that there is not a presumption of notability for a mayor of a city under a certain population threshold, usually 50,000 if the mayor was independently elected, rather than selected by the council. - --Enos733 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Christie (ski entrepreneur)

John Christie (ski entrepreneur) (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)

NN person. BLP completely fails RS / GNG. 2 primary, 1 non-RS, 1 self/primary = 0 RS . Scope of sources is also local. Widefox; talk 22:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person in the skiing business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are a ton of sources discussing the subject on Google news. Granted, most of them are local to Maine, but there are also a few from Powder and Ski magazines (if you look on Google Books). Because of that, I feel like the article meets
WP:ANYBIO. Gargleafg (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Which part of ANYBIO? I'm struggling to see what the BLP is notable for. Seems he ran a ski resort? (the lead first mentions the Maine Ski Hall of Fame which is appears circular referencing/primary source) Widefox; talk 11:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:16, 25 November 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, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' as advertising and only what a personal listing by him would ever say, regardless, and hence WP:GNG means nothing when WP:NOT in fact applies instead. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:09, 9 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
talk, contribs) 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vordarian's Pretendership

Vordarian's Pretendership (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)

Much as I like (most of) the series, this doesn't merit a separate article. All the necessary details are contained in Barrayar. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barrayar, as a likely search term. Unjustified spin-out. Cavarrone 08:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. There doesn't seem to be much worth merging, and I question the likelihood of this as a search term. That said, the title's unlikely to be needed for anything else... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything appropriate per J Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barrayar. Plot-only cruft that isn't really needed in addition to the plot summary already present in the book's article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 14 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. Per the uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Holland

Wayne Holland (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 was wondering if state party chairs were notable, and from what I can tell they do not fit the political notable guidelines by default. Although this senatence is a bit ambiguous "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" Does office have to be in the formal government? He is more likely to pass with sustained coverage, but as far as I could tell from my google search it was just a little name dropping and no indepth coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State party chairs can be accepted as notable if they can be shown to pass
primary source, with no evidence of RS coverage about him shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 29 November 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, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's lots of coverage visible in Utah media as collected in HighBeam Research. Many of these are namechecks (and some are opinion columns by Holland), but a couple of substantive examples are [9] and [10]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep In addition to the 2 profiles in statewide newspapers borught by Arsiloxos, there was this : "Democrats go with self-styled moderate,"Burr, Thomas; Profile. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 08 May 2005: B1. [11]. The first hit on my Proquest archive search. Regional notablility established. Keep and improve.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - state chairs of major parties are not automatically notable, but this person does seem to
get to the bar. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The research of Arxiloxos and E.M.Gregory suggest there is sufficient coverage of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 22:53, 9 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. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hario

Hario (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 Japanese company fails
talk, contribs) 01:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any reliable secondary sources mentioning this company. mineffle ^(talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches find various routine announcements and a passing mention in a trade publication article Specialty Coffee Retailer – via
encyclopaedic notability. However Japanese sources may have better: I have notified the Japan project and am happy to revise my opinion if they locate better . AllyD (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Salt given this has not only been deleted in 2008, but was also in 2014, so the fact it's here yet again only suggests blatancy at restarting it later, since it would make it the 4th attempt. Although its local billion income is significant enough to not speedy, there's still not the currently needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 14 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. The amount of sourcing in existence that mentions the subject's name in relation to their part in a show is irrelevant, the requirement (as noted at
WP:GNG) is whether or not those sources cover the subject "directly and in detail". As no sign of this being the case has been presented by the editor requesting the article's retention, it is found that this article's subject lacks the requisite notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Lynsay King

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

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

Non notable actress, Found a few mentions about her role in Corrie but can't find anything substantial, As she played
Sarah-Louise Platt for the past 12 years it should probably be redirected to there however I'll let the community decide, Fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per nom. Played the role of
Sarah-Louise Platt for 12 years on Coronation Street. Odd that is being considered as a reason to AfD. There is a lot of where-are-they-now coverage on her, both is television documentaries like The Kids From Coronation Street and in print.[12][13][14][15] While each article might not be extremely in-depth, a combination of all pushes way past the threshold of GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

"There is a lot of where-are-they-now coverage on her" - I wouldn't call one result from The Irish Mirror alot, Having looked through the searches again only result is actually about Lynsay with the rest of the sources being about Tina O Brien so she fails GNG (I forgot to add above but there may well be sources offline however that's a wild guess but If I were to put money on it I would say there wasn't anything much better offline either)

NACTOR states the following: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Well A) She's not been in multiple programmes (She's been in various Corrie spinoffs but you may aswell say that's all one programme), B) She doesn't have a fan base, and C) Not entirely sure how you'd prove C ... So she actually fails NACTOR & GNG

Ofcourse If you or anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw but as it stands now she unfortunately fails both NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMETYPE. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
But that's the point there is no in-depth coverage .... they're all just trivial mentions (One source in the article is great however the article cannot solely rely on one source), I'm not trying to
Game the system here I'm simply going by what NACTOR explicitly says, Various actresses have been deleted due to the lack of coverage and the one role and being quite honest I'm not seeing anything different here, Ofcourse I have no objections to this being redirected but as it stands they're not notable (and it's highly unlikely they ever will be). –Davey2010^Talk 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The combination of the multitude of sources makes it in-depth. And sorry, but going by what NACTOR explicitly says is just ignoring
WP:GAMETYPE.--Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Except there isn't a multitude of sources ... there's barely sod all, Nope I'm going by a notability guideline which is followed by everyone on every single BLP AFD, She fails NACTOR as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are a multitude of sources.[16][17][18][19] which in combination equate to significant per
WP:GAMETYPE isn't going to change that.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Problem is those can't be used as they're all tabloid newspapers (It does state here you can use them with caution however I've been told more than once that that shouldn't be used full stop (I believe I asked at the help desk however that could've been this year, last year) , I personally still believe she does fail NACTOR & GNG but we obviously disagree so perhaps it's best we just move on otherwise we're going to be here forever debating this :), BTW I apologise for hatting this it's just usually long dicussions do get hatted, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG as well. Limited coverage from reliable sources, none of which address the subject in much detail. CBS527^Talk 15:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main role she played was a newborn, and her main qualification for that role was that she had a twin sister, so they could alternate playing the role. But, more to the point viz-a-viz
WP:N, the sources just aren't there. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Unruh

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jodi Unruh

Articles for deletion/Jodi Unruh (2nd nomination)

Jodi Unruh (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)

Uruh was a local televion news anchor in Oregon. This is not enough on its own to create notability. Our sourcing on this is mainly a press release from her employer on her leaving. In the previous deletion discussion back in 2008 we have the statement " Clearly can source article from the press release", which is just not true, press releases are not the reliable 3rd party sources needed to pass the general notability guidelines. I actually came upon this page from a link from Miss Oregon USA, and had to do google searches to make sure this was not a different person with the same name. I suspected it was the right person, and did find the one sentance mention from a high school classmate who wrote a memoir about house flipping. I also found that she has since leaving TV run a PR firm with 2 employees. No additional reliable sources and nothing that establishes notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hobit did not say that the press release contributed to GNG. Primary sources may be used to source articles. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not a vote. This needs to be listed under Beauty Pageants to be a fair discussion. There is a similar issue right now with Caitlin Morrall. As I'm only interested in the journalism list, I would prefer that others weigh in. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Town 'N Country Regional Library

Town 'N Country Regional Library (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 library fails
talk, contribs) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge, tentatively, to
wp:ATD to merge to the library system article, retaining the edit history at a redirect left behind, to be restored as an article with more material. --do ncr am 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Tampa–Hillsborough County Public Library System. Merge seems more appropriate. Not enough sources available for separate article. CBS527^Talk 15:34, 9 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiak

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cardiak

Articles for deletion/Cardiak (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Cardiak (3rd nomination)

Cardiak (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)

Restored for a new discussion, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17. This is an administrative action on my part; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Very good call to reopen. Yes, this was part of what I would call a mass nomination of hip hop producer/recording artists by User:DBrown SPS, one that I found at times to be very tenuous, rejecting and mis-representing independent media interviews as "primary," as I've stated elsewhere. At any rate, Cardiak appears to have worked with some of the biggest names in hip hop. More importantly, we see an interview in Vice's talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MUSICBIO excludes publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As written, fails NBIO/NMUSIC, but Shawn in Montreal does find two other sources, through they are all
WP:INTERVIEWs with associated problems of being de-facto half-self published (quoting heavily from the subject). Still, MTV is a household name, and it appears the subject is getting some recognition in the business. Borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources that have been identified here support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one source that could possibly be considered reliable, and the subject fails NBIO/NMUSIC.
talk) 00:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are other sources that prove his notoriety in the music industry. One being his most recent project for
J Cole a prominent hip hop artist for the XXL (magazine) publication Producers Explain How J. Cole’s ‘4 Your Eyez Only’ Album Came Together. His name is even credited in Complex as a producer for Grammy Nominated Compton (album) production (User:Tvirgil) —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per
❯❯❯ Vanguard 06:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Premiership of Narendra Modi

Premiership of Narendra Modi (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 current article is content forking of main article
WP:NOTABILITY for a standalone article. Junosoon (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete . All of the contents are already covered, in BLP of Narendra Modi, nothing new about this article to be separate, it is a mere replica copy and paste [21] from main article Narendra Modi. Junosoon (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon: It's not generally a good idea to post a separate "delete" !vote in addition to nominating the article for deletion in the first place, as it's assumed you are in favour of deleting unless you state otherwise. It's an especially bad idea to post your duplicate !vote below after others have already !voted, so I have moved your !vote up here. I hope you don't mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: I wish I could have edited the article to make it better, but it seems other editors are not very comfortable, after receiving this alert message on my talk page .[22]. Junosoon (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That alert was simply a coirtesy notification of discretionary sanctions being in place. You don't seem to have understood it, because if you had your first reaction would not have been to AFD the page because you think it (and the other article from which it was split) has POV problems. You realize that as soon as this AFD closes someone is probably going to ask for you to be TBANned, right? Your best bet would be to withdraw the AFD now and study up on our policies and guidelines before making any more edits in a discretionary sanctions area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NPOV.Junosoon (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
How on earth is that sentence not NPOV? Do you think he didn't express such hopes and Wikipedia read them in? Or do you think "hopes" is taking something he said at face value when we should be interpreting it critically? Wikipedia doesn't do the latter unless our sources did it first. I can't access the source but have you read it? Your English makes me think it's possible you simply don't understand what the words in the article mean, but if that's the case making a big fuss about it and assuming bad faith on the part of other editors is not the proper way to comport yourself on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I donot find a source to that statement, it looks like an opinion expressed as a fact in Wikipedia's voice.!Junosoon (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited inline is Manor, James (2015). "A Precarious Enterprise? Multiple Antagonisms during Year One of the Modi Government". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 38 (4): 736–754. Have you read it or not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for citing it, no I don't have access to it, so not read it!Junosoon (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :Concern: The Prime Minister of India, has a personal website [25], writing articles, even unknowingly, related on his policies, is nothing but next to
WP:PROMOTION of his policies, [26].Junosoon (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Junosoon: Nonsense. If you think the article has POV problems, edit the article to fix them. And if, as you say, it is a copy-paste fork of the main Modi article, then deleting this article wouldn't solve the POV problem anyway. As several others have already pointed out, there are an abundance of articles of this type, and those are never accused of being POVFORKs. Additionally, please stop posting "Comment"s and !votes at the bottom of the AFD. that make it look at a glance like your proposal has received support from anyone other than you. If you want to reply to someone else, use proper indentation or otherwise indicate to whom you are replying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a borderline disruptive AfD. This is a perfectly acceptable spinoff article, in line with
WP:SPINOFF, the relevant guideline. The nomination indicates a lack of competence, and a failure to read the guideline that is used in the rationale. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. It is a content fork, as Vanamonde93 has pointed out. The suggestion for the fork was made and discussed at Talk:Narendra Modi. I believe it is the right thing to do in this situation. In fact, "Premiership of X" or "Presidency of Y" articles are quite common on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Subject is as close to "intrinsically notable" as we could want. We have articles on the premierships of like six British PMs and the presidencies of I don't even wanna count how many POTI. The only reason not to have equivalent articles for the PMs of the second largest country on the planet. It would be different if Indian PMs were like, say, Japanese PMs and their premiership lasted on average around a year or if the current topic was ambiguous because Modi was serving his second or third non-consecutive term, but these simply are not the case. I was initially inclined to favour deletion in the short term because most articles I have read on Indian topics are very poorly written and a copy-paste of an article I hadn't read but had reason to assume contains grammatical errors and unsourced claims sounded like a terrible idea, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be some latitude to discuss and review whether some of the content is appropriate or speckled with
WP:POV problems — however, articles like this are permissible and expected for people who have been national leaders. See, frex, Presidency of Barack Obama, Premiership of Justin Trudeau, Premiership of Theresa May, Presidency of Hamid Karzai, Presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, and on and so forth. There's room to question whether the content of the article is neutral and objective and properly sourced — but this type of article is a thing we are expected to have whenever possible, precisely to help avoid overloading the BLP with content that weighs it down and makes it longer than manageable. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Bearcat: You are among the first serious/competent user to suggest that there might be POV issues with that content: as the person who wrote most of it, I would be most interested in hearing your concerns. I have tended to ignore most complaints about the article, because they take the form of "It is too critical! Scholarly sources are just opinions! You need government sources to discuss policy! No court has found anybody guilty of these accusations!" and so on and so forth. If there are serious concerns, I will treat them seriously. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed the article myself; I'm merely acknowledging the possibility that such concerns may exist in the sense that it's always a possibility in any article but not so's it would necessarily force deletion if the article is fundamentally a valid topic. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 12 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.
WP:SOFTDELETE given the lack of non-sock input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

ZCubes

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/ZCubes

Articles for deletion/ZCubes (2nd nomination)

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

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

Delete and Salt given the sheer blatancy of this being used only for advertising in the time it has existed, also we honestly know that the 2008 AfD had several troubles in that, not only were there SPA accounts taken seriously for Keeping but no one actually cared to acknowledge the concerns, thus here we are. All sources listed are simply press releases (or republishing of them) or trivial and unconvincing information sources, none of which substantiate notability. Given this was deleted 3 times ten years ago, and it's quite honestly only stayed this long because no one ever cared to renominate again, it's conceivable this will be restarted once again if deleted, and it should not be accepted at all unless AfC is used, as to allow re-examining before it ever gets to mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' per nom, as well as the extensive use of buzzwords. ~~Pyrusca (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

[Revert as per
WP:BLOCKEVASION
using strikethrough font. 05:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 9 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. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Trip

Culture Trip (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:NCOMPANY Kleuske (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 20:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical "minor-tech-startup" spam, with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising by advertising-only accounts and they actually went as far to include everything their own "About" would consist of, that alone is sufficient to delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no content pointing in the direction of advertising in this article. It seems to be purely factual with references to trustworthy sources (Wall Street Journal for example?). I've cleaned it up a few times by now. DitteH 15 December 2016

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upkar Prakashan

Upkar Prakashan (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 failed to find any reliable sources on Google. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NCORP; the page claims that the company is notable but there is no evidence of this Spiderone 10:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete no third-party sources to back the grand claims of the article. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 10 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. While the arguments raised for failing
the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to coverage in several media outlets. PROF is explicit in that it's independent of other notability guidelines (and therefore doesn't supersede them). That said, several arguments rest heavily on a single source (the BBC), which is an outright incorrect reflection of our notability guidelines. Coverage by the BBC alone (or any single other major news outlet alone) doesn't confer instant notability. However, several also argued that coverage in other publications (e.g., due to community outreach efforts) as well as awards/honors won may meet the requirements on the amount and depth of coverage for sufficiently meeting one or several non-PROF notability guidelines. slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rabia Salihu Sa'id

Rabia Salihu Sa'id (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. Her only paper in Google Scholar has never been cited. Her notability is due to the BBC's publicity effort, and only that--there are no notable accomplishments at all. The only reason for including this article, is to promote our own publicity effort. But we don't advertise here, even for an unquestionably worthy cause like Women in Red. The pace to advertise our projects is not as articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate the instinct to make sure we don't end up with navel-gazery in the aftermath of high-profile projects, but I disagree with the rationale. (FWIW, I saw this AfD after DGG mentioned it on his talk page.) It doesn't seem to be the case that coverage of Sa'id is exclusively due to BBC publicity; she had previously received the Elsevier award for women scientists in developing countries, and was covered fairly extensively as a result of that, which preceded the 2015 BBC list. She's been profiled in mainstream news sources about science, like this Nature News piece, and also in Nigerian sources, like this one. She's also a fellow of the African Scientific Institute, although I'm uncertain of their selectivity. And while none of these are substantive coverage alone, they're evidence she's obviously active in advocacy and public outreach [27], [28], [29], [30]. She's published more than a single paper, though mostly in Nigerian journals (her CV is here). She also seems to be putting some of her professional effort into her outreach work, e.g. [31], [32]. I think it's a mistake to judge Sa'id by WP:PROF - which of course defines criteria mostly based on the typical activities of Western academics - when her notability rests so strongly on the specific cultural context of her achievements. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but despite all the hype, her work has attracted essentially zero attention from the scientific community. The rest seems to be
WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete, per nom and per Xxanthippe above. Nothing even remotely approaching passing
WP:GNG. No other valid basis for keeping the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Even if her scientific impact might not meet the criteria of
WP:PROF, there seems to me to be ample coverage of Sa'id herself to meet the GNG. Significant coverage by the BBC (which whatever its involvement with this article is still a very reliable source) [33][34], NPR [35], Nature [36], Elsevier [37] and Yahoo News [38] stand out in particular. Remember we're here to judge notability, not scientific achievement. One doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with the other, even for academics. I think we should also be careful about relying to heavily on Google Scholar to judge impact in cases like this. It's not very good at picking up journals that aren't in English and/or aren't online and included in standard indexes, which probably gives it a significant systematic bias against scholars in developing countries. Joe Roe (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She's quite notable and popular as presented on the BBC page. I think this page just need additional references and more structuring.
talk) 16:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Routine interviews are part of the intellectual/academic scene and, if this is the standard, much of the academic world will be notable for WP purposes. But it's not. That's precisely why we have WP:PROF. Her work has not been "noted" (I cannot really even see any publications in GS). Parenthetically, I'll again point out the fallacy of the "bias" argument against GS/WoS/WorldCat et al. Anyone can submit work anywhere and the system (writ large) is remarkably good at matching the impact of scientific work and publications. Agricola44 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Are they? I don't know anyone who's been interviewed or profiled like that. At best, a journalist will call you up for a line or two for an article on a new finding, and even then it's usually only relatively big names who are asked. I was under the impression that we had
WP:PROF
to widen our biographical coverage of academics, not exclude otherwise notable academics who don't meet it. In any case, it makes it quite clear that it is independent of the GNG and "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way".

Regarding Google Scholar, I'm not sure how you can maintain that it's not subject to some systematic bias given the facts in front of you. How else do you explain that Sa'id's CV lists 20 peer reviewed publications and you can't find any of them with GS? While yes in theory anyone can publish anywhere, in practice the journals you choose to submit to is heavily affected by what journals you and your immediate academic peers subscribe to, publish in and edit. There are also significant and extensively documented financial barriers to scholars in developing countries accessing and publishing in high profile western journals. Joe Roe (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but wrong on almost all counts.

PROF. Academics are, by nature, experts in in narrow fields of knowledge and it is not unusual for them to be one-off interviewed (popular media, as expert, etc) for a particular topic, to have their work/book reviewed, to have their opinion cited ("according to Dr X, an expert on Y,..."), and so on and so forth. Many folks here do not seem to be aware of this fact. By their very nature, academics tend to have much more coverage than the average person in society. PROF functions to keep WP representation somewhat proportional, i.e. to prevent a bias of what would be perhaps e-6 (like one in a million) for non-academics vs maybe 30-50% of academics who would have WP articles. PROF is definitely exclusionary.

GS bias. We should understand that "journal" is an extremely loose term. I see some on her list like Journal of the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics and Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences. These are obscure publications likely having little to no barrier to acceptance and whose papers are rarely, if ever cited. There are plenty of such "junk journals" (pardon the pejorative) the world over, including especially in the US and Europe and their existence is basically supported by the phenomenon of CV-fluffing. For outsiders, her CV looks great, but those in-the-know will consider it to be heavily padded.

Choice of submission. This is certainly not governed by which journals your immediate peers subscribe to. Keep in mind that the journal impact "pecking order" is well-known to all academics in all academic sub-fields. The rule-of-thumb that almost all academics follow (driven by the desire for career advancement and visibility) is that your work is submitted to the highest journal at which you feel your paper has a reasonable chance of review/acceptance.

Financial barriers. The situation is precisely the opposite of what you claim. A large fraction of mainstream journals have enormous incentives for authors from developing countries. These consist minimally of fee waivers, for example with the enormous family of BMC Journals, as well as other advantages. The general philosophy for some time now has been that there should be no barriers to publishing based on who is submitting.

This person is very obviously an average academic. Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage to pass GNG. The argument about it being "routine" is specious: people aren't the subject of a large amount of news coverage for being a physician unless they are noteworthy in some way. We don't need to hold the article to the standard of PROF, either. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Requiring her to meet PROF is a somewhat one-dimensional approach. It is like saying that Dr. Phil or Ben Carson should only have articles if they meet academic requirements. As has been pointed out numerous times, the standard is not selective criteria based on a sole aspect of someone's life, but their notability over time in reliable sources for the totality of their accomplishments. Thanks @Opabinia regalis and Joe Roe: for digging out sufficient sources to confirm she clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Dr Phil's notability were based on his academic role, then he would not have articles, but his notability is in a different field. As for Ben Carson's notability , it would be sufficient just based on WP:PROF, with a citation record of papers with 368, 342, 227 172 etc citations, almost all in the most important journals. But Sa'id's notability is stated as being a physicist, even in the BBC award, and has to be judged on the basis of WP:PROF. What else has she done which is supposed to be notable? Giving awards to people to demonstrate cultural diversity has a social purpose--it's not irresponsible for BBC to do that. It is irresponsible for us to do it for the purposes of an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really need to have this discussion again. She doesn't have to have done anything. Porn stars are notable for WP purposes, as are people like the Khardashians and Paris Hilton, for having done nothing at all. All that is required is that any subject have RS not affiliated with the subject, which have noted them over time. She has been noted for her activism in encouraging others to pursue education and mentoring in every article. That is more than sufficient for GNG. SusunW (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't have to have done anything. That approach may be adequate for celebrity magazines, but it it not sufficient for Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia requires solid and noted career achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Actually WP requires no such thing. RS over time in sources unrelated to the subject, no field nor achievement is required at all to meet WP criteria for GNG. No academic or alternatives are required, at all. It is remarkable that she returned to school and got an education in a developing country in a field where women are typically excluded. It is even more remarkable that the press has noted her accomplishment and held her up as a role model for others. That she has been recognized by both the Elsevier Foundation and BBC is much more than many in her position would ever have achieved. Thus, she is notable. SusunW (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Sorry, but GNG provides just that: if someone is a celebrity or well known for any reason, they are notable. We might not like it, but that's not a valid AfD reason as you well know. Both of you are trying to hold this woman to a higher standard than GNG. Why? This is a case of special pleading. DGG even said if her career was like DR Phil, then he'd evaluate differently? Why? We only need to pass a standard of notability, which she does. We don't need to pass her on multiple levels unless there is a new set of policies out there I'm unaware of. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You and SusunW are trying to hold her to a lesser standard than we uniformly hold academics to. Why? Agricola44 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
No, Agricola, you and DGG are making a special pleading to hold her to some alternative standard. Per PROF "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline." All articles must adhere to GNG. Why do you insist that she meets something else? SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the relationship between
WP:AUTHOR, etc. – whatever applies). They are not mutually exclusive. As it happens most academics do not meet the GNG so it rarely comes up, but in this case the opposite is true. It's not a double standard or special pleading, it's the same standard as always: do we have enough reliable sources to create a reasonable article about this person? Joe Roe (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the nature of what is encyclopedic. Please see my expanded comments below. Agricola44 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, unlike those celebrity rags like Nature and NPR, we here at Wikipedia only cover Serious Business ;)

Simply repeating that Sa'id doesn't meet WP:PROF is not engaging with the argument being made, and is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog. We define "notability" in order to provide guidance on which subjects have enough source material published about them to write a reasonable article. Sa'id has had a large number of profiles written about her and her work. Fortunately, that's enough; we don't have to second-guess why the source material was written or make judgments based on what we personally think the sources should be writing about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is important because the first line of the BLP states that the subject is known for her research tackling climate change issues in Nigeria. This appears to be unsupported because there is not a single citation to her research in either of the citation databases
Web of science
. The impact of her research on the community of mainstream science appears to be zero.

I note that there has recently been a debate on whether notability standards should be lower for minorities subject to systemic bias in Wikipedia than for others (noting that although women do not form a minority in terms of population, they are underrepresented in Wikipedia. The consensus of the debate was that standards should not be lower.[39]
That statement is directly supported by an inline citation to a source that states, "[Sa'id was honoured for] her research that seeks to solve Nigerian environmental challenges" [40]. The discussion you're pointing to seems like a strawman to me, since nobody in this AfD is suggesting that the notability standard should be lowered in this case. Joe Roe (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we shouldn't overwork ourselves or start politics over something quite simple; I concur that there's still nothing here for WP:PROF and nothing else genuinely convincing, and the BBC link itself is not sufficient for an article here alone. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I'd agree there's no evidence she meets WP:PROF, she has gained substantial press coverage, some of which is reasonably detailed eg this article in Nature. All the sources that people are turning up need adding to the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it needs clean up but it is notable.
talk) 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Who cares whether she meets Prof she doesn't qualify as a footballer either. The point here is notability and Prof is just a sub-category. Did Rosa Parkes DO anything? She just refused to move seats on a bus and a group of activists created a publicity campaign for her. I've been telling newbies this week that "in a nutshell" if you find someone identified as a subject in Nature, the BBC and say the Elsevier Foundation then tick.... write an article. If the BBC decide to make a celebrity profile then that usually works. She may not be the leading academic in Nigeria but she has been chosen for coverage by important reliable sources. Victuallers (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC is an independent and reliable source. Their attention alone is sufficient for
Chitty. Andrew D. (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per ExpressoAddict and Victuallers..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - There's a surprising amount of "Who cares if she satisfies notability", "WP:PROF is nit mattering" (even though it's the field to judge her, in this case). Also, we cannot simply say "It needs work, improve it" if there's in fact nothing to improve. Simply because the Keep are stacked largely in number is not meaning they carry weight. Importantly, we cannot compare her to Rosa Parks as the latter was a historical figure, whereas this is not. WP:BASIC and WP:GNG mean nothing when WP:NOT in fact will, because if she's not satisfying PROF, she's not notable, and the nomination has also shown she's not satisfying AUTHOR either. As it is, we have considered PROD as a notability-based policy so calling otherwise is not what we've established, take "she may not be a leading prof in Nigeria, but this is enough" for example. Also, simply because a BBC profile exists is still not founded notability established policy, so we shouldn't mistake ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks became a historical figure though because of media coverage. Without that she wasn't notable, same with this I think. DGG certainly has a point on her merit as a scholar, obviously there's thousands of more notable scholars missing with dozens of papers, but somehow this woman got on the BBC 100 list and is getting coverage. I think being included on a BBC 100 Women list is a major thing, there's millions of women in the world. As an encyclopedia I think we just need to look at whether there is coverage in reliable sources or not, not just make judgements on the validity of the coverage, though I understand that argument. In this case it's not just the BBC, the Elsevier Foundation Awards recognized her too. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody in this discussion is saying "who cares if she's notable". A major point of contention does seem to surround
WP:PROF is irrelevant if the subject satisfies the GNG. Others have argued that all academics must meet PROF if they are to be included. I find the latter interpretation hard to reconcile with the guideline itself taking pains to emphasise that it is fully independent of the GNG or other SNGs. Joe Roe (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The BBC annaul 100 women award is just not enough to establish notability, and as an academic she clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is Encyclopedic? Here is another case of blind "there are sources" bulldozing by many editors seemingly wanting to preserve an article in order to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, in this case to retain an an article on a woman from a developing country who, we claim, is a notable scientist ("known for her research tackling climate change issues in Nigeria"). What do the supporting sources say about this? Well, when you check, they indeed all say, in no uncertain terms, that she is a researcher in the atmospheric sciences: "gather atmospheric data...", "lecturing and supervision of undergraduate and postgraduate students as well as research in the field of Atmospheric Physics...", "Atmospheric physicist...", "physicist Rabia Salihu...", "A PHYSICIST IN NIGERIA...", "atmospheric data", "physicist who has..."
.

So, we take the next logical step and check the basis on which these sources make their claims. Here we find a problem in that there is no basis. GS, which slurps in just about everything, doesn't list anything. Even direct Google searching on the titles of her papers (from her CV, linked above) mostly doesn't return anything. So, what about checking the journals? These are publications like the Journal of the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics and Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences. Nobody has ever heard of them because they're un-indexed vanity venues whose works are never read or cited by any mainstream scientists: no impact, no citations, etc. Our WP article now seems to be outright lying about her notability. We claim notable accomplishments in atmospheric science, but there actually are none. It will be immediately obvious to any atmospheric scientist and obvious to anyone else who bothers to do any minimal checking. This compromises WP's reputation. What gives?

In my view, what gives is the following. Forget, for a moment, the
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusades that perfuse WP. The problem with the "there are sources" argument is the modern commodification of sources has devalued them, often down to nothing. A century ago, when communication was expensive, a source only existed to confirm/report some aspect of already-existing genuine notability. Now, content is often generated only to fill our modern infinite channels of zero-cost communication. Here, we have not much more than another case of a person being famous for being famous. WP is full of this stuff, a recent archetypical case being Jacob Barnett
– we finally settled on a warts-and-all factual article. For the record, I'm all for keeping this article, if it is written factually, by which it could not say that she's a notable researcher.

I'm disappointed that so many editors have this anti-intellectual, knee-jerk "there are sources" philosophy. If that is all there is to expanding WP, then smart people could just write a big script to crawl the world's knowledge banks. My view is that the only real value that we editors add to WP is through discriminating discernment and judgement of what is, in fact, encyclopedic. Here endeth the soliloquy. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a classic argument to avoid – see
WP:NPOV. Andrew D. (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm afraid all your soliloquy is saying to me is that you haven't understood even the basics of
isn't the place to seek to change it. Joe Roe (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

So it sounds like the two of you are OK with having an article that makes false statements. Please have a look at the Jacob Barnett article where barrels of ink were spilled on this type of issue. It is, in fact, up to us to "fact check" because secondary sources are sometimes wrong, especially in the sense of promotional articles, which are what surround this person. If you're not doing this, then why are you an "editor"? Here, the most we could say is that there are sources that have called her a notable climate scientist. We cannot say she is a notable climate scientist because that would have to be supported by published work that is highly-cited by her peers in mainstream scientific journals. Such does not exist. I think that this issue is basically what prompted DGG's nom. Agricola44 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - there is a fair amount of extra material out there about the Elsevier awards. Their full title is the 'Elsevier Foundation Awards for Women in Science in the Developing World' though sometimes they are called the 'Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early Career Women Scientists in the Developing World'. Anyway, I added more to the article, including the actual award citation, and finding the research mentioned on carpenters' briquettes. As an award sponsored by Elsevier, presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and partnered by the Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World (OWSD) and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), I think this is a more notable achievement than being on the the BBC 100 Women list. Certainly there is enough out there about these awards to warrant details in a list article. See here for more about the awards. @Agricola44: why did you pick the Nigerian journals above? She was not given the award for her work in climate change science. You need to go to the actual award citation and go from there.. It took seconds for me to find the paper published here in International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering - website is here. Would you or others be able to evaluate that? Even if that isn't a step up, it is still good to be able to directly cite the paper she co-authored and see what the work is that she received her award for. I don't know which sources were used to put "climate change researcher" in the Wikipedia article, but I agree with you that someone seems to have over-reached there. I'll remove that now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it, the Elsevier award might satisfy
WP:PROF#C2 after all. Joe Roe (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Carcharoth: Let me answer your question in the context of my not knowing how much the various panelists here know about the scientific research process (though I know DGG knows it extremely well). Her CV is packed with red flags. I mentioned Journal of the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics and Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences because their names give them away. You mentioned International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, which sounds mainstream, but isn't. For example, it's on Beall's List of predatory journals. For that matter, so are most of the other "journals" she has published in, including Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, published by SCIRP, and Advances in Applied Science Research, published by Pelagia Research Library, International Journal of Physical Sciences, published by Academic Journals, all of which are listed on Beall's List. Indeed, it seems the entirety of her work appears in junk journals, which explains why even Google doesn't show any of her "research". You linked to the paper for which she received this Elsevier award. Have you read it? I have, and it is consistent roughly with a high-school-level science project. I will ping several others who I know have scientific backgrounds to have a look, in case I'm missing something. (Will list here, once pinged).

Started with pings to RockMagnetist, David Eppstein, Xxanthippe, and Nsk92. Agricola44 (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was taken to task above for "fact checking", but I'm afraid these individuals still don't understand that even usually-reputable publications make mistakes, or least over-sell matters, because of promotion or lack of training or skepticism, etc. of their staff writers. I maintain that WP is full of these sorts of "notable scientists", who really demand much closer scrutiny. Agricola44 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Agricola44: you are making the mistake of thinking she is notable for her scientific research. She is not. I have a scientific background and I agree with your assessment there (though not the tone you adopt). No-one should be claiming that her science is groundbreaking or notable (certainly not without sources stating that). What she is notable for is receiving an award from Elsevier that is specifically aimed at women in science in the developing world. The coverage from that and subsequent similar coverage, is what just about makes her notable under the GNG. You may also want to take a closer look at the Elsevier award. The description (which I linked above) is:
[the awards] recognize the achievements of researchers who have made significant contributions to the advancement of scientific knowledge. [...] Succeeding in the competitive world of science is challenging under the best of circumstances. But women scientists in countries with scarce resources and competing cultural expectations face significant additional obstacles as they strive to excel at careers in science. This awards program takes those factors into account by recognizing the research excellence of early-career women scientists from 81 developing countries. [...] Each year a total of five winners are selected, one from each of the following regions: Latin America and the Caribbean; East and South-East Asia and the Pacific; Arab region; Central and South Asia; Sub-Saharan Africa.
In the area of women in science in the developing world, her achievements have been recognised. You are judging her by the wrong standards. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Save" people in the developing world. The notion of judging a certain group of people by lower standards contributes to reinforcing the existing class structure and is also disrespectful on a personal level. This is precisely the kind of rhetoric which drives away contributors from certain areas of the world. If the ultimate aim is to address systemic bias and encourage a diversity if editors, a better environment has to be created - an environment which emphasises equality and doesn't apply separate standards for articles about people from a different race/class/region. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Lemongirl942: you are talking to the wrong person. I couldn't agree more. I came to this article from working to produce the list here. Around 200 articles in varying states produced on one day in an editathon with people from all over the world, many not that familiar with our notability criteria, with some people working very hard to try and work out what should be kept. Quite why some articles are getting this level of attention and others are not, I am not sure. I didn't create any of them, but have worked on Carole Souter which was relatively easy. Quite why I started work on this article, I'm no longer sure. But the YouTube video (which I added) was nice to watch. Watch it yourself and see if you think the people in it would agree with you. Thank you for prompting me to find a non-primary source on this article. That is six citations I added to the article. I hope those who commented earlier might be able to return and see if their opinions have changed. The changes since the article was nominated for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I'm pretty sure she does not pass
WP:PROF it would be a major problem, but I think the GNG case is independent of that. That said, any parts of the article based on material in bad journals (in particular the sentence cited to her own paper in IJETAE, for which see this post) should be trimmed from our article. It's not a reliable source both because of the journal quality issue and because it's by the subject rather than about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, David, for that. I've said more on your talk page, but I think you have erred in removing that citation. It was only being used to cite the fact that she had published that specific paper in that journal. That is part of the public record, and shouldn't be censored. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have the problem: an award based on high-school-level publications in junk journals. Will the article say that? Agricola44 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You do have some very valid points. But would it not be better for you (and maybe David) to write to Elsevier, the AAAS, the OWSD and TWAS with your concerns, rather than making comments on Wikipedia of this nature about a living person? Imagine how the subject of this article would feel if she read some of the comments you have made denigrating her work? Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the enormous downside of even creating articles like this. Please have an honest look at Jacob Barnett, especially the AfDs and recent talk. This exact topic was discussed to death. The article is factual, but very unflattering. What we should recognize is that anyone can easily do the minimal level of checking I did and find out the puffed-up basis of this article. If it follows the odyssey articles like the one on Barnett, it will be nominated for deletion from time-to-time, each occasion of which these same criticisms will come out. I don't think we can let what people think trump true and honest debate on an article. Agricola44 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puffed-up basis of this article? Have you even read the latest version? What is puffed up about it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but here is the problem. The text "received an award...for her work on atmospheric physics and environmental challenges" is, at best, very misleading. Most readers will take this to mean that she has done important work in these areas and this is false. Even many of our commentators here were fooled and they were supposed to have done the vetting. Knowing what we all now know, I would presume that none of us would be comfortable with a whitewash, even a well intentioned one. So, let me say that I have the same philosophy on this article as I have on others like it (most recently Jacob Barnett): I'm fine with keeping it, as long the text is honest, complete, and not misleading (as it now still is) Agricola44 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We don't know anything,
WP:PROF, but Mr. Beall calls them predatory for a reason. They dupe well meaning academics who maybe don't have the highest-profile research or the best English skills into shelling out to publish in them. Publishing in them is embarrassing but it doesn't necessarily say anything about the ethics of the authors or the quality of their work. Joe Roe (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It is very difficult to offend me, you're not even close ;-) So, it sounds to me like, as long as someone has said she's done important work in the atmospheric sciences, that's good enough for you and that that is what our article should say...all this in the face of the fact that all her work is published in, let us say, vanity journals and that none of it has ever been meaningfully cited, much less probably read, by mainstream atmospheric scientists. Are you not worried that this sort of thing contributes to perceptions of WP not being authoritative? Anyhow, I don't think I can say much more. This article is sure to be kept, based on sources. I can only hope that wiser heads prevail such that the content is ultimately not false or misleading. Agricola44 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The fact that all the subject's research papers are published in junk journals is, perhaps, not of major importance. After all, publishing stuff adds (or subtracts) not one jot to Wikipedia notability. What is important is that the work be noticed by others, and in this case, there appears to be not a single citation to the work in any of the citation databases: these are the gold standards for research impact. Therefore, the award by the AAAS for her research may be misleading to many, as it implies that the research has made impact on others, as awards for research are usually taken to do. The matter will need to be mentioned in the BLP, but I am glad to see that some of the ill-advised and misplaced peacockery in the BLP has been removed by editors. It is clear that this award is not given for excellence in research, judged by international standards, but for the no less worthy but less notable perseverance in difficult circumstances.
WP:Prof#C2. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment (warning, humor alert!), another candidate for List of really, really, really, really long AFDs, at over 6k words and about 12x the size of the article being discussed., actually this has been a very interesting afd to read and i will be adding a link of it to my userpage, thanks to all the participants. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Sometimes you get a perfect storm with just the right conditions for a long discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: a couple of points, looking back at the original nomination statement. It should be clear by now that there are a number of inaccurate statements in the original nomination. DGG, you said "Her only paper in Google Scholar has never been cited." This is incorrect. She does have papers in Google Scholar that have been cited (but this is a red herring, her notability does not, and never has, derived from her scholarship [as that is normally judged]). DGG said "Her notability is due to the BBC's publicity effort, and only that". This is also incorrect. The Elsevier publicity (January 2015) and the British Council publicity (March 2015) all pre-dated the BBC publicity (August 2015 onwards). She has also received ongoing publicity since, such as this. Finally, DGG said: "we don't advertise here, even for an unquestionably worthy cause like Women in Red". This is also incorrect (and the bit of the deletion nomination statement I found most bizarre). Nothing in the article itself mentions 'Women in Red' (which is a Wikipedia WikiProject). How is the article an advertisement for Women in Red? There is a big, big difference between writing articles on women, and advertising a WikiProject. Unless DGG is confusing the BBC's 100 Women with Women in Red? They are two totally different things, as can be seen by following the links. On a more upbeat note, one thing I found out today: I never realised there was an International Day of the Girl Child. The things you learn on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any papers by her in
Google scholar. Can you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
(1)What paper does she have that Google Scholar says is cited? Most of her papers aren't even listed there.

(2)Do you really think there is no relation between the Elsevier/British Council publicity and the BBC? They've found a few women scientists in developing countries whose careers can be made to sound interesting, and they all celebrate them. I note the name of an award: for "early career women" -- "early career" means not yet notable. Notable scientists are those who already are past the point of being in the early stages of their career.

(3)I used Women in Red as a shorthand for some of the recent projects to increase the representation of women in WP. Most of the work of the actual WiR participants has been excellent, and I've helped people there with a number of articles. (In NYC at least the people organizing the events do a great deal of screening to ensure against articles for people who will not securely prove notable) Some related editathons have not been well-conceived, including the one in London focused on the BBC list. It is degrading and insulted and condescending to write articles on women who would not be notable by the ordinary standards, or to stretch the standards to accommodate them. There is no reason to do this to increase the representation of women in WP--it will be infinitely better to write articles on the ones who are notable, and to take more seriously the fields in which women are active (and perhaps to decrease the over-representation of some fields which women are generally less likely to be interested). There is only one way a scientist can be notable, which is by their science, and this is measured by citations. A plausible question is whether she is possibly notable for "community work, but that's such a vague concept that I do not think that anyone could be notable for that unless it was in some specific field, and I do not see that. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Searching on the titles of the papers (rather than her name, which runs into several problems) finds some. As I said, a red herring (she isn't notable as a scientist). For what it is worth though, they are here (should be the top result each time): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am aware that many of her papers don't appear at all in Google Scholar and that: (i) the last one linked isn't cited; (ii) that even though some are cited there isn't much; and (iii) that the journals are not the best. That is not the point I am making. The point is that you (and others) very specifically said that she wasn't cited and her papers were not showing up in Google Scholar. That is demonstrably false and places in question the ability (in this specific case) of some of those commenting at this deletion nomination to do basic literature searches. It is forgiveable, as there are problems in the citation record with her name and what is used as her surname. But maybe a cautionary tale to try a bit harder when doing searches? (And to wonder why nothing is showing up in a search when it should.)

(2) There will be a connection, but no more so than normal. You are right about early career scientists. But again, the notability she has is not as a scientist. I would go further than you and say that we shouldn't write about people in the middle of their careers. You can't realistically assess someone's notability until their career is finished. But as long as Wikipedia is writing about living people, and basing coverage on journalistic sources (rather than sources placing people in proper historical context), this is what will happen. Also, the whole "inspirational" = "media coverage" = "notable" sequence is very shaky, but that seems to be what happens when you get 'role model journalism'.

(3) About WiR and the overall addition of such articles, this AfD started after I left a note on your talk page and you replied here saying that you had nominated this article for deletion. What I was surprised at is that you and others seem to pass over other articles in that list (some were not there at the time) such as
Gouri Chindarkar, Samantha John
. I struggle to understand why this article was nominated for deletion, but those ones were not (at least not yet). Is there such a big lag in the deletion nomination and review process, or did you pick this as a borderline one as an example for the rest?

Your last two sentences I disagree with totally. Scientists can be notable for things other than their scientific work. And people can be notable for community work (in this case for science outreach work). Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your strawman of us not knowing how to search, I'll only remind you that I said of her work that none of it has ever been meaningfully cited and this is undeniably true. For example, on this one that you mentioned, there are a measly 6 citations and, importantly, all are either from obscure conferences, or from junk journals, most of which are on Beall's list. This is the sort of "walled garden" that exists at this level, with typically none of this kind of work ever seeing the light of day within mainstream science. But can we turn the conversation? I'm pretty sure this article will be kept, so the issue will now be what the article will say. Looking past this AfD, the main question will be how to delicately address the fact that she has recognition for research (which enables the existence of this article), but that mainstream science is not actually aware of this this research because of the problems we are all now aware of. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The article talk page is the best location to discuss improvements to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I just want to establish the existence of this issue now, so that folks are not shocked later with what I anticipate (if history is any guide) will be a very lively discussion. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 05:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP There are plenty of reliable sources in Nigerian media and elsewhere about Rabia Salihu Sa'id that meet Wikipedia standards because people are interested in writing and reading about her and other women who are working in STEM in developing countries. Because of that the article easily meets
WP:PEOPLE
"significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".
Additionally:

1) As has been pointed out by several other people, the nom statement is inaccurate. Whether WP:PROF is met or not is a red herring. To quote
"This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTHetc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1]

2) All that is required for an article is for her to be well known from coverage in the media like the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton or other [[Category:Royal wedding dresses]]. Likewise, I'm sure that Cabbage and Koalas don't have accomplishments and instead rely on general notability guidelines to establish the basis for the standalone article.

3) The fact that activists or advocates for a stronger presence of women in the media are talking about a specific person or group of people in the context of an ongoing specific media series or event is not promotional in the sense of
WP:PROMOTION
but instead it is valid topic of discussion for a specific genre of writing. Today, there is an genre that writes about gender issues in employment, research, and the media. Similar to how both the media and Wikipedia articles contain content about campaigning politicians and election by political writer or about college athletes recruited as professionals and major sporting events by sports writers.

The bottomline is that Rabia Salihu Sa'id is "significantly interesting" for the media to be writing about her for several years now and therefor this Wikipedia article should be kept. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based upon the nature of the recognition she has received, and that the recognition section is larger than her career section - there might be more here. There are a number of sources that have been added in the votes and comments here. I would like to see what can be made of this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see that content was already added to the article since this version, when it was nominated for deletion. IMO it should be kept because: 1) She is a researcher in the field of atmospheric and space-weather physics, for which she has been awarded, 2) she is at least equally known for her contributions to Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) outreach, for which she has been awarded, 3) she has received international press for her role as a physicist and role as an advocate and mentor for young women, 4) has co-founded Nigeria's Association of Women Physicists, and 5) has published journal articles about her work. (It does not fit within a guideline, as far as I know, but she is an inspiration within her country, where universities do not often have the money to fund research. And, she is effective despite the odds - for instance, she only has electricity for her computer (required for her research) for four hours a day. Many students don't have access to computers or the internet at all.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which policies are you referring to for notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
WP:PEOPLE - because she is known as much for being an advocate for education, women, and the sciences as she is a physicist and researcher.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I agree she may only be "an average academic" based on her publications, but she obviously meets
WP:PEOPLE based on sources (BBC, NPR, Nature, Elsevier). Also, the article has been substantially improved since it the AFD nomination, making the case for keeping it even stronger. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Moved to Talk:Rabia Salihu Sa'id because it is an article content discussion about the Elsevier award

WP:COI? I have none myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

No connection \ COI to Elsevir. - I have no close connection or conflict of interest.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier COi? No, of course not - Plus, "Squirrel!" Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to say that I am disturbed by the provenance of this prize. Its awarders give the impression, which earlier on in this AfD debate misled some, that the research of the awardee was done within the framework of mainstream science and had been recognised by the community of mainstream science. At this stage of the AfD it is appears to be accepted by most contributors that this is not the case (but plausible arguments claim that notability can be found in
WP:Women in red have been unwittingly harnessed into promoting the interests of a megacorporation. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
Xxanthippe Is your concern a content concern (i.e., there should be some sort of special handling of the discussion of the award in the article, if it's kept) - or are you asking people who based their vote on the Elsevir award to reconsider their vote? Or something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a connection to Elsevier apart from having published in one of their journals (which is hard to avoid these days). I'm as critical of their business practices and stranglehold on academic publishing as anyone, but it doesn't really get more "mainstream" than Elsevier. Also, for what it's worth, technically the award was given by the quasi-independent grant-giving body the Elsevier Foundation rather than the publisher itself. I'm sure they do give out these kind of things to try and salvage their nosediving reputation, but I don't see how that makes it any less of a notable achievement for the awardees. Dubious motivation didn't hold back the Nobel! Joe Roe (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, why are you chasing shadows here? If someone was promoting Elsevier, they would more likely be creating articles on the Elsevier Foundation, on the awards themselves, and on the other prize recipients (from other years as well as this year). Not that such article creation would necessarily be wrong if done correctly. This article was clearly created by someone with an interest in Nigerian topics. As has been pointed out, Elsevier is about as mainstream as you can get in science publishing. Are you going to start objecting to Microsoft Award next? And if you can't even spell Elsevier correctly, I am sceptical that you should have been among those pinged by Agricola44 for your "scientific background". Anyone with a background in science would know how to spell Elsevier correctly. OK, withdrawing that last bit, as it is a legitimate alternate spelling (if still a bit odd to see it used here). Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage people to stop second guessing motivations for media articles written about Rabia Salihu Sa'id. Going down that path is problematic on many fronts and in fact leads to Wikipedians using our own views to decide who is notable instead of relying verifiable reliable secondary sources to decide the selection of content for Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is almost certain at this point that this article will be kept because of the sources. However, I think what Xxan is pointing out is the larger issue of our role in sustaining any misrepresentation. The Elsevier citation expressly says the award is for her briquettes research. The bio in Nature repeats that the award was for her work. However, we now know this research was published in a vanity journal, has been cited only once, the citing article likewise appearing in a vanity journal, and that mainstream science is unaware of this work, outside of the Elsevier award. In my opinion, questions of due diligence, undue promotion, fact checking, unfortunate wording, etc. on the parts of Elsevier, Nature et al. are not really the issue here...after all, they are sources. Our dilemma is whether to suppress this information, in which case WP readers will be left with the false impression that this person has made scientific impact, or to include this information to truthfully and fully convey the biographical details for the reader. Agricola44 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:TOOSOON, but there are multiple independent, reliable sources publishing about her, so by default she meets GNG... and, well, fin. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You misunderstand me. I'm not objecting to the Elsevier award, nor am I saying it's not sourced. However, I am reminding panelists here that it was given under false pretenses in the sense that it is claimed to be a research award, but was bestowed upon a person whose research has yet to see the light of day in mainstream science. As I said, the "disconnect" on the parts of Elsevier, Nature, AAAS (whether lack of due diligence, careless promotion, etc) is irrelevant, as are opinions on Elsevier's corporate practices (mentioned several times, including your
WP:TEXTWALL). FYI, the briquettes research was not published in an Elsevier journal, as far as I can tell. I recognize the article is likely to be kept. The issue is whether we suppress these details of which we are all now aware. Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Xxanthippe and Agricola44, if I'm understanding you correctly, you all seem to be objecting to any mentions of the topic of the research that Sa'id is doing by the group giving the award, by the media covering the award, and by Wikipedia because you do not think Sa'id is worthy of an award based on her body of work on this topic. This approach seems wrong because 1) the topic of her research is of interest and would naturally be covered when writing a media piece about her getting an award 2) Wikipedia should follow the lead of reliable sources for the content about her work unless it is outrageously stating a fact that is implausible. Then we would require multiple sources to confirm. (this doesn't seem to apply here) So, I have no problem with mentioning the award and mentioning that the award was based on her work in Atmospheric Physics. (I was reluctant to reply more about this in the Afd because it seems more appropriate for a talk page discussion on the article.) Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm not objecting to mentioning the award. On the contrary, I'm saying more information will be needed to put this award into context. Anyone familiar with scientific publishing will indeed recognize the problem of vanity publishing. Please familiarize yourself with the very similar case of Jacob Barnett because it is a good predictor of where things will go after "keep". See you on the talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

We'll be fine if we follow the sources. No special effort is needed to put the award into context. But let's move the discussion to the article talk page. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Moving this discussion to the Talk:Rabia Salihu Sa'id page - and will add my comment there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a topic (in this case a person) meets WP:Notability it is not relevant whether it fails any additional guidelines and we are advised to presume notability. I am happy to accept this. Also, I see no reason for not accepting notability in this case. Multiple independent reliable sources are available as has been pointed out in the article and above. Thincat (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Mexico relations

Bulgaria–Mexico relations (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 . Relations are minimal at best. Just 3 state visits in 80 years of relations. Most relations are in the context of Mexico-EU relations which is notable. Level of trade is miniscule representing 0.000000009% of Mexico total trade. In other words if Bulgaria stopped trading, no one would notice. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is very much becoming personal. What is your issue? That's any country's relationship is insignificant? That relations are only based on trade or trade blocks? Which Deletion policy will you be invoking this time? Aquintero (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Is there anything else about actual bilateral relations? Military cooperation, significant migration? LibStar (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom fails to cite any reason (policy) as to why article should be deleted. "I don't think these countries' relationship should be considered important" is not a reason.
YO 😜 09:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

my reason is that it fails WP:GNG as stated first up. You've failed to give any reason why notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aquintero that this appears to be a bad faith nom. The idea that these two countries' economic, diplomatic and cultural relations over 80+ years does not meet GNG is ludicrous. Did you even look for sources? Говорите ли български? [42]
YO 😜 10:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

accusing someone of bad faith is an
WP:ADHOM. having some relations is not the same as notable relations. What economic and cultural relations? Trade that represents 0.000000009% of Mexico's total trade. Does not look like much economic relations. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG; subject isn't notable. What I don't understand is why not simply revert Aquintero82's edit and return this to a redirect, then discuss? I guess if Aquintero82 wants to write worthless articles like these we have no choice but to delete and perhaps impart a lesson. It's worth pointing out there is no valid policy-based argument to keep this article. Perhaps no one is aware AfD is not a vote. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Chris troutman for your immature remarks. If citing Afd, you, maybe you should use your words more carefully. The article is a work in progress and and will always evolve. You must also be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup? Aquintero82, (talk), 21:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link is
WP:!VOTE. Please read it. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

this article doesn't need clean up because relations between countries is very limited. Instead of trying to demonstrate notable relations, I get
WP:ADHOM attacks. If that's the best then it says a lot for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Both of these are large and populous nations with a studied foreign policy and history of bilateral relations. The nominator has made, just guessing, probably over 100 challenges of X-Y Relations articles over the years. Community consensus has been that extremely small island nations' relations with all but their closest allies have been deleted, while bilateral relations of significantly sized nations have been kept. While the population of Bulgaria is not enormous at just north of 7 million, Mexico ranks among the most populous nations at 122 million people. Even the nominator acknowledges that these countries have conducted multiple state visits between each other, each of which was covered in the press. Let's stick with the rational consensus that we have followed that the bilateral relations of large countries are kept. Carrite (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to address how WP:GNG is met and try to incorrectly argue inherent notability that mexico Bilateral relations get a free pass for notability. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rational consensus that we have followed that the bilateral relations of large countries are kept is an invented criterion that is pure subjective. In this case you've decided to give Bulgaria arbitrarily "large" country status purely to invent notability when in fact many cities of the world are larger in population than Bulgaria. Using this reasoning any country with a larger population than Bulgaria gets an automatic bilateral article with mexico. Therefore mexico-Nepal, mexico-somalia must be article. It's not a rational consensus but an irrational illusionary consensus. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As usual, LibStar fails to see bilateral relations in a broader historical and social context. Here it is important take into consideration the close (albeit complex) relationship between Mexico and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. See for example "They stressed the fruitful Bulgaro-Mexican cooperation, especially in the field of disarmament, and stressed the hope that it will be raised to a higher level. The talks gave a high assessment to the consistent foreign policy of Mexico directed..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=JwoUAQAAMAAJ p. 57), "el gobernador Rubén Flgueroa Flgueroa, para que Inaugurara 1,762 obras de beneficio colectivo en las que se Invirtieron 1,394 millones de pesos, al tiempo que se le dio a conocer un ambicioso programa agroindustrial Búlgaro-Mexicano.." (https://books.google.com/books?id=b4UwAAAAYAAJ ), "Estoy profundamente convencido, señor Presidente, de que las conversaciones que sostendremos aquí con usted contribuirán a darle una dirección todavía más fructífera al desarrollo de la amistad búlgaro-mexicana y mexicano-búlgara y a" (https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=sv&id=l-4RAQAAIAAJ), "El Vicepresidente búlgaro, Peter Tanchev, recibió el 26 de mayo a los senadores mexicanos Héctor Vázquez Paredes y Andrés Valdivia Aguilera, con quienes trató puntos tendientes a ampliar la colaboración búlgaro-mexicana." (https://books.google.com/books?id=vfMOAAAAYAAJ), "y de la cooperación búlgaro-mexicana interesarán a ambos pueblos y contribuirán asimismo a los esfuerzos en pro de la paz en el mundo." En seguida, el mandatario visitante presentó su comitiva oficial al Lie López Portillo y a su esposa." (https://books.google.com/books?id=xaEwAAAAYAAJ), "Dicha visita fue correspondida por el señor Teodor Yivkov a nuestro país en abril de 1979, estableciéndose asi vínculos de cooperación científica, técnica, educativa, que empiezan a rendir frutos en la cooperación búlgaro-mexicana." (https://books.google.com/books?id=gNKHAAAAIAAJ) "Comisión Intergubernamental Mixta Búlgaro-Mexicana para la Colaboración Económica y Comercial La Segunda Reunión de esta Comisión se celebró en la Ciudad de México del 19 al 20 de marzo de 1979, de acuerdo con lo estipulado" (https://books.google.com/books?id=sNBJAQAAIAAJ), "Ambos funcionarios hablaron también de la próxima reunión de la Comisión Mixta de comercio búlgaro-mexicana y se consideró que al mismo tiempo que se realice esa sesión en Jul próximo, se podrían celebrar algunos acuerdos" (https://books.google.com/books?id=q84bAQAAIAAJ) See also https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=en&id=JeAWAQAAMAAJ . There was also Bulgarian migration to Mexico (https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=sv&id=AoEhAAAAMAAJ p. 29), many Bulgarian-Americans arrived to the US via Mexico (https://books.google.com/books?id=VNCX6UsdZYkC&pg=PA39). See also https://books.google.com/books?id=vR3jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA240 --Soman (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for making a genuine effort. This is much better than Carrite's lame effort. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Robin's Diary

Robin's Diary (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 appear to meet
WP:NBOOK ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; I already had PRODed this for the nom's reasons. Enterprisey (talk!) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started the AfD but was doing a more thorough/second
WP:BEFORE prior to finishing. It seems you did the prod between my clicks, so no problem either way.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merged any pertinent data and added some from what I'd found.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kozodoy

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

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

Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Cited sources and what little Google uncovers that involve him in any significant degree include material he wrote, press releases, and material about him on websites of his own company or of organizations he belongs to or of events in which he participates. His Millennial Move Maker award from a local Chamber of Commerce isn't a notable award. Largoplazo (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this was deleted yesterday under G11 and G12 [1]^[2] I also don't think it meets notability criteria. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 16:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Peter+Kozodoy&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1

^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-kozodoy-44079056/de

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Watson (rapper)

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

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

Non-notable musician.
flyer 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to pass
WP:GNG
or any other notability measure I can find.--15:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. Breeze Harper

A. Breeze Harper (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)

Comment: Appears to fall well short of Notability_(people) She does seem notable as the VP candidate for the Humane Party, and is mentioned there in that context. Perhaps not as a separate article though. CeilingCrash (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As creator of the article obviously I felt Harper was notable enough for Wikipedia, not only based on her VP nomination but on her academic work and activism. Funcrunch (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I certainly don't want to speciously discard your work here, and have no personal beef with this activist (No pun intended.) Can we find sources referencing her that satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria or Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ? 38.84.134.54 (forgot to log in ...) CeilingCrash (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Running as VP candidate for the Humane Party would not alone be enough, but the popular attention that she has received for her activism and the academic attention she has received for her intersectional approach to veganism push her over the notability line. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I can't find secondary sources that meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people).

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

I also can't source the claim that she passes the "professor test." I'll change my vote if someone can provide such sources. Otherwise I find a vote to 'Keep', however well-intentioned, ungrounded in Wikipedia Policy. CeilingCrash (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her work has been a major influence on research subsequently published in Corey Wrenn's A Rational Approach to Animal Rights (specifically, chapter 5) and Critical Perspectives on Veganism (Polish's chapter at least, possibly others; I will be getting a copy, but don't have it yet). She has also become a favourite foil of
Gary Francione, and there will be reviews of her edited collection. This piece, by Andrea Plaid, is indicative of what I am talking about: "I’d definitely call Dr. A. Breeze Harper one of the top intersectional vegan theorists today. And that’s not just hype—she most famously did this with her 2010 anthology, Sistah Vegan: Food, Identity, Health, and Society: Black Female Vegans Speak, in which she gathered a community of Black female-identified vegans to talk from their own experiences navigating their many communities and politics. Thanks to this groundbreaking work—and her founding and curating the Sistah Vegan Project website—Dr. Harper is one of the go-to experts on food-based environmental feminism." This indicates the significance of her academic work, even if this might be a corner of academia alien to a lot of Wikipedia's contributors. However, you miss something if you focus solely on her academic work; her activist and political work (as far as one can distinguish the three) also add to her notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep Fair enough, and thanks for sources. It is an esoteric area, but I think these sources demonstrate she is impactful in that field. (I.e., passes the 'professor test')

Reversing my vote CeilingCrash (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CeilingCrash: Since you have reversed your vote, as the nominating editor, you have the option to withdraw the nomination and close as speedy keep, per AfD procedures. Funcrunch (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, will do. CeilingCrash (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have alerted WikiProject Animal Rights as articles on veganism are under their scope. Funcrunch (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also alerted WikiProject Women. Funcrunch (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smriti Neupane

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

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

Non-notable child pageant winner.
flyer 02:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 02:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 02:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete "Little Miss" is way, way, way below any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Little Miss Something? Please delete this article asap. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove
notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 14 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 withdrawn. Withdrawn under protest; a low-level "named chair" should not automatically mean PROF is met, but I am clearly in the minority. (
non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mario Luis Small

Mario Luis Small (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
MILL status. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as nomination consists of only "primary sources listed", but this is what confirms information from the source and field; importantly also, he has a named chair at UniversityChicago and another at Harvard, instantly satisfying WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep holders of named chairs pass notability guidelines for academics. We do need better sourcing though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications on Google scholar), #C3 (member of Sociological Research Association), and #C5 (the named chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 10 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of U.S. Presidents and wars they started

Timeline of U.S. Presidents and wars they started (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a list as such, but merely a placeholder for a chart the creator put together, which can't be easily edited. Title is certainly POV; for example, FDR didn't invade Poland or bomb Pearl Harbor. BilCat (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This information is highly subjective, and there is no detail given whatsoever. There are also no sources for any of this information. {MordeKyle} ☢ 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is based off of
Timeline of United States at war. Wikideas1 (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe it should be Timeline of U.S. Presidents and wars so it seems more neutral. Wikideas1 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL..Done...I know we are a very important country but we didn't start World Wars One and Two.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually very cool, but pure original research to present the data this way. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the title as suggested.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A PDF chart presented as an article; POV violation; copied an existing template and combined it with an unsourced chart of cool information; quite difficult to edit, let alone expand upon. Drdpw (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could change the war bars to all the same color (purple) so it is completely neutral. Would you allow it to stay up then? Wikideas1 (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Among other things, some of these so-called "wars" weren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Wikideas1 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aegean Anti-Piracy Operations, 2nd Sumatran Expedition, Bombardment of San Juan del Norte, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SNOW. "Which ones?" Laughable question. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I note that the article title has been changed. So let's get rid of this one and move on to the next AFD. 04:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You guys are no good for Wikipedia "censorship". Wikideas1 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete There are some OR concerns that are possibly irreconcilable. For instance, the
Renegade period of the Apache War and to decide how to show the Indian Wars (as individual conflicts, ad a single conflict, to include some but not others, etc). I am not sure there is a NPOV way to display Indian War information in a simple timeline. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia needs graphs, tables, charts, and timeline tools like Numbers for Mac (spreadsheet), Excel, or OpenOffice. Wikideas1 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs images but not as the entire article content, for god's sake.
talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm talking overal, Wikipedia needs better tools to edit instead of doing it third party with a different app or program. Wikideas1 (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per
WP:NPOV and one image used to present entire article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Inherently POV title. Carrite (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be made with this information. Something you can sort through and click links to. I find it interesting only one time in history was there a president who wasn't involved in a military conflict. Instead of calling it a war, you can call it a military conflict or military operation. This is encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 08:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

–
List of the lengths of American participation in wars, among others. This particular "article" is not an article, but a highly subjective media file with no accompanying text. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:39, 15 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 speedily deleted per article creator's request as allowed by
WP:CSD#G7. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Islam in ancient Bangladesh

Islam in ancient Bangladesh (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 a
WP:FRINGE territory. Huon (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Hagiographic fork of Bengali Muslims#History. Eperoton (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was considering a redirect, but it is indeed anachronistic nonsense. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back to Bengali Muslims. Dealing with a pre-partition subject such as this on the basis of post-partition boundaries is wholly anachronistic. I have not looked hard enough to see of there is anything worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. @Metropolitan90:, since you deleted the article could you close this discussion? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2832 Menlo Avenue

2832 Menlo Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable building. The sources provided say nothing about it. Largoplazo (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buildings-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see why it's notable and it does not appear to be classified as a historic building anywhere. It's just student housing.[43] Being famous for "wild parties" in the neighborhood is not worthy of an encyclopedic entry.
YO 😜 09:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable
residence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghania

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

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

Not
WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the article are dead links. Unable to find any indication of sufficient notability. utcursch | talk 03:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 03:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of evidence of being able to pass
WP:GNG Spiderone 10:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 12 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 Zopo Mobile § Color Series. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zopo Color C3

Zopo Color C3 (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)

Clear advertising as both the information and sources are exactly that, either specifying only what the company would advertise about itself or republishing it, both of which are quite the same, regardless of publication and name, and WP:NOT policy explicitly allows such removal, as Wikipedia is not an advertising webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Spam sourced to product summaries. Non
notable product. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Promotional material can be cut. The product is clearly notable: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are all indie try blogs anf one of them, Livemint, is in fact a known paid PR host, thus because none of them are actually significant, there's no confidence of notability (I'll note that I've never even heard of these websites except for the 1 paid PR). SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been reviewed in a number of rs for chinese products, articles should not just be concentrated on big brands such as Apple and Samsung which is the consequence of these deletion nominations. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to correct the media's bias. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zopo Mobile#Product Series and consider a more general Zopo Color article for all the minor variation being spammed here seperately. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (warning: sarcasm alert for 1st bit) - "It offers a variety of back covers, including rose gold, champagne gold, marine blue, classic black and silver.", WOW!!!, different colored back covers, amazing!!!, lets 1st have an article on the company that makes these phones, then a break out to a model series article if necessary, not articles on every variety, this and the other Zopos looks like
WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per above. Not independently notable. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Zopo Mobile § Color Series. The topic has received some independent coverage (e.g. Mint article), but many available sources are not reliable per Wikipedia's standards, or are routine in nature. Some sources are reliable, but are using content that appears to originate from the manufacturer (e.g. this NDTV article). No prejudice against recreation if the topic receives more independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achleshwar Baba Temple

Achleshwar Baba Temple (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 notability. Created by sock puppet and edited by another one. Deprodded without comment by an IP. No content apart from Infobox. PamD 06:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Mark

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

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

Non-notable BLP Jon Kolbert (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Extremely self promotional, with 100% of the text copied from [44]. Failing
WP:ARTIST criteria passing, but in this case it's not. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete. Fails
WP:NOTPROMOTION...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Fateha-i-Yajdaham

Fateha-i-Yajdaham (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)

Text is inscrutable; no viable references; tag for non-referenced article has not elicited any improvement in 20 months; some research fails to turn up any useful support; only information found suggests it may be an optional holiday in Bangladesh some years Sirlanz 11:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abdul-Qadir Gilani, ~~which is called Gyarvi Shareef [45]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply
]

~~Another option is to rename the article Gyarvi Shareef but to point Fateha-i-Yajdaham (and possibly Fateha Doaz daham) to Mawlid.Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Sorry to keep coming back to this, I think the best thing is to merge the content to~~
~~Abdul-Qadir Gilani.~~ Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Excellent idea. Let's keep WP making sense! sirlanz 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this unsourced piece of misinformation to
Rabi' al-thani. It is amusing though, that even locals have never heard of this day. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~I suspect that the independentbd.com article and possibly one or two others associate the holiday with Gilani because the wikipedia article has it like this, but~~ I ~~could~~ be wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda is right, it is Gyarvi Shareef, see [46]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:24, 13 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. MER-C 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absent Minded (Canadian rapper)

Absent Minded (Canadian rapper) (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 notability - doesn't appear to meet any
WP:MUSICIAN. Sure there's sources, but claims of notability such as "record landed a position on a local London, Ontario independent hip hop chart" is well short of bar for entry here. (a NN or borderline N BLP combined with paid editing - which is disclosed but not fully on creator's userpage) Widefox; talk 12:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant independent coverage, local charts, mixtape releases, etc. Doesn't qualify under
WP:BAND Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an
IFPI-certified. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Konwarpurar Konwar

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

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

Non-notable future film. No indications of any significant coverage for this film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Searching for the Assamese name doesn't help either. utcursch | talk 03:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:MOVIE...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound World

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

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

Not see refs that support notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a worthy charity, but I cannot find any in-depth independent reliable sources for the organization. --Mark viking (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes sources are light on. They wold stand up much better if they were inline references. Section Chochlear Implants is not relevant here and needs to go, so that leaves only four lines of text, but that is four time as many as some locality articles will ever have. I suspect a bit of work could find more sources and more content. Aoziwe (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to
non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

College of Medicine, University of Ibadan

College of Medicine, University of Ibadan (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)

more like this one
College of Medicine, Lagos State University. Nothing of note to deserve a standalone article. A redirect is possible. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
talk) 03:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to University of Ibadan. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. This should be nominated at
non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft:A.E.Schlueter Pipe Organ Co., Inc

Draft:A.E.Schlueter Pipe Organ Co., Inc (edit | [[Talk:Draft:A.E.Schlueter Pipe Organ Co., Inc|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Abandoned draft; user has not edited Wikipedia in over a year. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_December_9&oldid=1136472448"~~

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Peter+Kozodoy&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1

[2] ttps://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-kozodoy-44079056/de

[2]