Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 3 November 5 November >

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 Speedy delete. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.

(non-admin closure) jp×g 21:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Charvi Saraf

Charvi Saraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not so more needed on wikipedia

yes i also want this article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.117.75.74 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion on my talk page, I've nominated the article for G7 deletion since Akshayzine13 is the author and only contributor and wants the page deleted. Please could this AfD be closed? Marianna251TALK 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that this AfD was ever properly opened, so it doesn't need closure. Just request that the page be speedily deleted (also G7). General Ization Talk 20:58, 4 November 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 Scarborough, North Yorkshire#Education. Mkdwtalk 06:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seamer and Irton Community Primary School

Seamer and Irton Community Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School does not appear to be widely noticed in secondary sources. It's an elementary school so probably not notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree with nominator. Nothing to suggest this primary school is notable. Blythwood (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable source listed on this article neither a single source. It hereby fails
    WP:GNG --Music Boy (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there have been no chances nor shall there be in the foreseeable future that such trivial and unconvincing matters as these would be notable, including for their own article, therefore there's nothing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Adam9007 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 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 deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (model)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.166.22 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (model) (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)

McGeddon (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here of relevance to tea-boys article. If anything a line into Instagram celebrity. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk, contribs) 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
An unknown tea seller who became an overnight social media sensation after one Instagram photo is textbook
McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: This is why
    WP:BLP1E
     exists. Not almost but one and all coverage of this individual is related to a viral photo. Let him do some Tv shows/films/fashion shows before creating an article about him.
I'm open to amend my !vote if someone can find me one coverage of this individual unrelated to that viral thing or explain in simple words how it is not a case of one-event notability.
Anup [Talk] 14:18, 12 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kyburz

Kevin Kyburz (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)

Some sources by him, some sources where he speaks as a blog journalist, but no reliable, independent sources about him, as far as I can see. Fails

Fram (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you not consider the sources of Swiss National TV (
NZZ
) important?

Keep. --Swisswikia (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He works for Blick am Abend, your link is to an article by him, not about him, so that is not an independent source. The Swiss TV is a short interview with him, but he is interviewed because he works for them apparently (he is labeled "Digital-redaktor"). Again, not about him. The Tagesanzieger is a short passing mention, not a source about him at all (it doesn't mention anything about him except that he is a Swiss blogger. The NZZ source is similar, he is one of a number of bloggers mentioned, in his case with the description "a co-organiser of search.ch events". Such passing mentions are not sufficient to base an article on. He needs to receive significant attention about himself, not about general blogging issues, from independent sources.
Fram (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
But it is certainly sufficient for the category "Swiss journalists" and "swiss bloggers", because for this he has enough sources. In my opinion, he is an expert in the field and as such is interviewed and writes contributions about it.--Swisswikia (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
being a member of a category is not sufficient (there are thousands of Swiss journalists and Swiss bloggers). Please check our
Fram (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the page and yes there must be worked a little bit, but Kevin Kyburz i a person like all this (Category:Swiss journalists). also just a keep from me. --Swisshashtag (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk, contribs) 23:39, 4 November 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. Only one editor wants to keep this.  Sandstein  20:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Street Radio

Street 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)

None of the claims in this article that would indicate notability have credible sources.

  • The coverage that Street Radio got in Vibe Magazine does exist, but it was an extremely brief mention that doesn't establish notability -- you can see it here (page 46).
  • I can't find any evidence of Street Radio being covered by Plateau Magazine. In fact, I can't find any information online whatsoever about Plateau Magazine -- I don't know for sure that it even exists.
  • The sources on MTV.com and datpiff.com have no mention of Street Radio that I can find (well, one of the two MTV.com sources is a dead link; don't know about that one).
  • discogs.com, uncutmagazine.net (to be clear: no affiliation with the British Uncut (magazine)), and hiphopdx.com all do not constitute reliable sources.

I can't speak to the accuracy of the claims that Street Radio did produce the tracks that this article says they produced with Jay-Z, 50 Cent, etc -- at least some of those credits do appear on sites like discogs.com and allmusic.com, but I'm not sure how reliable/trustworthy those sites are. It's a bit irrelevant though -- notability requires having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Having a handful of production credits isn't enough, nor is the tiny mention in Vibe magazine. Unless more reliable sources can be found (and I've really really looked), I just don't think there's enough evidence of notability here. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've also started an AfD for the related article J. Math. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references on the page look thin and I can't see anything else anywhere which suggests subject meets the GNG. JMWt (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Keep

Wiki says "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:"

- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Criteria satisfied - Street Radio produced “I Like The Way She Do It” by G-Unit on the Interscope released album T.O.S. This track was also released as a single on CD and vinyl. The song placed on the Billboard “Hot 100” chart and the “R&B/Hip-Hop” chart. The billboard charts also list K. Smith and J. Matthews, pka Street Radio, as songwriters for the song.

[1]

[2]

- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Criteria satisfied - Street Radio produced “9mm” off of Bone Thugs N Harmony’s Strength and Loyalty album, which is certified gold by the RIAA.

[3]

- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Criteria satisfied - Street Radio has produced music on multiple major record labels, including the before mentioned Bone Thugs N Harmony’s “9mm” and G-Unit’s “I Like The Way She Do It”, both of which are commercial releases by the major record label Interscope Records. Street Radio has also produced music on multiple independent record labels that have a history of more than a few years with a roster of performances of whom are independently notable. For example, they produced Foxy Brown’s “Brooklyn’s Don Diva” and Wu Tang’s “Start The Show,” both of which are available on Koch/E1 Records.


While Wiki says musicians are notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, I have included three satisfied criteria above. I have also listed links to reputable sources like www.billboard.com and www.riaa.com . I have also listed another reputable source (www.spin.com) to the page itself. Kairaba (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Kairaba[reply]

Comment: no, the policy doesn't say that "musicians are notable if they meet at least one of the criteria" it says that they may be notable as judged by those criteria. And anyway, I don't see that musicians are necessarily the same thing as the producers of that music. Of the information presented above, the third point seems to me to be strongest, although it would need to be verified as being accurate. JMWt (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JMWt; those criteria are for musicians, not for producers. I think for a producer to be considered notable, they would have to have significant coverage beyond just their production credits. -IagoQnsi (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point about producers and musicians not being the same thing. In this case, however, the producers are also the musicians. Hip_hop_production is distinctly different from traditional producers in that it "encompasses all aspects of the music" and so hip hop producers are more aligned with being instrumentalists, in that they create all the music while the rapper writes and performs the lyrics. Instrumentalists are listed among musicians in the Wiki description of "musicians or ensembles."

Because hip hop producers are instrumentalists but are also credited as being composers and co-writers, they blend the line between "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.)" and "composers/song writers." Under the notability standards for composers, Wiki says "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." I attempted to address this alternative or complementary perspective by noting that the members of Street Radio are listed by name as co-writers on all the tracks they have produced as well as being credited for production. Musicians are rarely given writers credit or any ownership over the music, while hip hop producers are very often given writers credit and most commonly own 50% of the music. I tried to make this distinction by adding in the text that "Street Radio produced and co-wrote..." when referring to their biggest commercial releases. In summary, Hip Hop producers are essentially musicians and composers/song writers.

In reference to point 3 being accurate, I think the best verification is the liner notes of the albums themselves. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate a site that shows scanned album liner notes. Sites like discogs.com and allmusic.com are some of the most reputable sources for liner note information, and I included links to these sites on the page. Does anyone have recommendations or information regarding better sources for liner notes? Kairaba (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Kairaba[reply]

Update: Street Radio (content and sources) has been updated to reflect above comments. Kairaba (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Kairaba[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk, contribs) 23:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Page has been updated with more references including Spin Magazine, Scratch Magazine, and Source Magazine, as well as a number of Billboard charts and RIAA certification. Subject of page meets multiple criteria for notability and has produced music for a significant number of notable artists. Subject has also produced a number of singles that placed on the Billboard Top 200 as well as Billboard international charts. Subjects have produced work for gold certified album "Strength and Loyalty." and references have been updated on this as well. Page has also been updated to include quotes from interviews with Street Radio that were not previously included. These interviews are from reputable hip-hop websites like Sohh.com and Hiphopdx.com.

Robust changes have been made to the main page. Please refer to the page itself for further info. The protocol to show notability has been satisfied in a variety of ways. Thanks for everyone's comments and questions, as it made me dig deeper and ultimately improve the quality of the page. I referred to dozens of others producers pages who have similar track records as Street Radio, and this page is very strong as a result.

In my experience, Street Radio would be considered mid-level producers (low level producers have produced tracks for notable artists but with no singles, billboard placements or RIAA certification...mid level producers have produced for notable artists and their works have reached Billboard or RIAA status...high level producers are often ASCAP/BMI award winners and mostly produce singles for the upper echelon of artists)

In addition, if anyone is interested, here are other mid-level producers similar to Street Radio: Mura Masa, Knxwledge, Illmind, Knowbody, DJ Dahi, Apollo Brown, Sounwave. There are many, many other notable producers of this caliber on Wiki with no Billboard or RIAA certifications and no singles by major label artists. I know that other people's pages do not serve as justification, but I do think it's important to know the culture of hip hop producers and the context they fit in before being able to determine if they are notable or not. Kairaba (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Kairaba[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big V - the Great!

Big V - the Great! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:ARTIST. Unreliable third party sources and primary sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability. Only one "album" and 4 singles. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Besides the usual Soundcloud type sites, there isn't anything out there except some social media. Album was released in August on the indie label Disconneq Musik. Unable to find information about the label except on a few social media sites and until two months ago, it didn't sell beyond South Africa. Unless references pop up in Afrikaans, Zulu or other South African languages, article fails GNG and NARTIST. Bgwhite (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk, contribs) 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted: G4. DrKay (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Mountbatten

AfDs for this article:
Ella Mountbatten (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)

article fails

WP:GNG as notability isn't inherited. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:18, 4 November 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 Sun TV Network. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chintu TV

Chintu TV (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 TV channel, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 22:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:33, 5 November 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

MAA TV. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Maa Junior

Maa Junior (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 TV channel, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect per
    WP:SNOW. Let's clean up this backlog. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 18 November 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. Mkdwtalk 07:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G.D. Crain

G.D. Crain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject fails

WP:GNG as search results only bring up minor mentions from primary sources —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nominated fails
    WP:GNG --Music Boy (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete The topic of the article fails WP:GNG. I'm generally an inclusionist but am going to have to say no to this one. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 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 by

WP:CSD#G11, unambiguously promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Anjali Butani

Anjali Butani (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)

self published work of an unremarkable person who fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:38, 4 November 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--

"talk" 17:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ahlawi derby

Ahlawi derby (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)

Please note that this article has been tagged as a concern for over 7 years now. It appears to contain a lot of

WP:GNG. I can't find any references about this supposed rivalry at all apart from the odd Facebook page etc. Interestingly, these two teams are not even anywhere near each other (one is in Tripoli and the other is in Benghazi) so I can't see how it could be called a 'derby'. Spiderone 22:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:28, 4 November 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 Move to Draftspace. Cerebellum (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peerless Network, Inc.

Peerless Network, 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)

promotional content with no claim of significance. Sources provided are more like press releases —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:50, 4 November 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--

"talk" 17:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yano Anaya

Yano Anaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: non-notable former child actor, whose career lasted 5 years. Quis separabit? 21:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per nom. Biggest career moment was a brief supporting role in a 33-year-old movie.
    • speak up • 02:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - non-notable actor. --
    talk 05:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 8 November 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. I've deleted the article under

WP:SPAs. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Dinclix GroundWorks

Dinclix GroundWorks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in accordance with

talk) 21:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmmm, this one's the only one I found was YS --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about reference numbers 7, 8, 9, 10? =Gary 03DGW (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at them. None of them are independent sources as required:
7. "Research Projects". Self-published by the company. Not independent coverage.
8. "B.R.A.C.E.". GroundBlog. Blog post, written by the company. Not independent coverage.
9. "An overview of DGWHyperloop". Self-published by the company. Not independent coverage.
10. "Bringing Elon Musk's Hyperloop to India". Written by the company. Not independent coverage.
@
talk) 18:21, 6 November 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--

"talk" 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rubin Kazan–Krylia Sovetov Samara derby

Rubin Kazan–Krylia Sovetov Samara derby (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)

See

WP:NRIVALRY; whilst I have no doubt that this rivalry exists in some form, I can't see why it would warrant its own article. It could do with a mention in the articles of the two respective teams but nothing more than that. No absolute evidence of GNG being met. Please note that a speedy deletion was declined five years ago. Spiderone 20:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 7 November 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) 11:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Math Is Fun (website)

Math Is Fun (website) (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)

Promotional. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never thought I would see this here. Delete. Pyrusca (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing how many news articles, papers, and books cite the website (use the links above) I am sure this article is notable. The Alexa Rank is indicative of that Keep
    talk) 00:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, magic should be the only thing taught to those who do not elect to learn technique. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to take that comment. I only know that if I had been presented with the apparent magic of the Banach–Tarski paradox as a teenager I would have wanted to go on and study mathematics further at the time to learn the necessary technique to understand it properly. As it was I gave up the subject because the curriculum offerred was tediously boring, being seemingly based on solving engineering problems rather than anything that interested me, and I have only taken up the subject again much later in life. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may be fun, but nothing suggests that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fun is subjective concept. But nothing here meets any Wikipedia notability requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:15, 11 November 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--

"talk" 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC). Would have qualified for speedy deletion.[reply
]

Dharmendra Singh (politician)

Dharmendra Singh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Singh (politician) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Candidate not yet notable per

WP:POLITICIAN: not yet been elected to office. Can't find significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without comment by anonymous editor. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates for political office, per
    reliably source credible evidence that he already passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates do not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete why is this article even being discussed? Should be nominated for speedy deletion. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject fails
    Anup [Talk] 17:49, 5 November 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 Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (Victorious song)

Countdown (Victorious song) (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 or merge into Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. Abbottonian (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 November 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 Castle Rotondo#Origin of the name. Consensus was to merge with Castle Rotondo but since the same text was already present in that section oof target page, redirect performed instead of merge.(non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Rotondo

House of Rotondo (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

WP:GNG. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 01:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There is nothing false, or invalid about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ajmemeni (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to see other references. Perhaps to a history of Kaštel Štafilić. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 November 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--

"talk" 17:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thailand–Vietnam football rivalry

Thailand–Vietnam football rivalry (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)

See this

WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable and GNG needs to be met. In this case, it doesn't appear to be met. Spiderone 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:53, 4 November 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable. North America1000 03:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straw feminism

Straw feminism (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 different than a regular straw man fallacy, completely made up term with no significant history of usage. GutsKnucklebone (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've actually checked for sources? Jennifer Purvis, "Girls and Women Together in the Third Wave:Embracing the Challenges of Intergenerational Feminism(s)," NWSA Journal 16 (2004) discusses it.[7] And, including "Straw feminist", I seeGScholar, GNews, GBooks. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (edit conflict) Sources published by reputable academic publishers have commented on the term, it's history, and its usage with more than superficial depth: [8] [9] [10] etc. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Look at the discussion page on this article. I'm not the only one who takes issue with the fact that this term is absolutely no different than a regular straw man fallacy. Even if some feminists are using this term in place of straw man argument, it's still no different whatsover from a regular straw man and should be disregarded as "femspeak" that never caught on enough to deserve a wikipedia article. Or should I assume it's OK to write a Wikipedia article on every entry in urban dictionary? Condoning this kind of nonsense exposes the complete lack of NPOV on the subject matter. The article itself reeks of bias. -Guts Knucklebone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:FD47:385E:EDE5:A960 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked for all this alleged notability and found the same definition repeated over and over on a lot of those "72 hits dating back 20 years." This is nothing more than different sites grabbing content off one another in order to to get traffic. It does not suggest any significant usage of this term. Furthermore I have been involved in the feminism debate a long time and no one is using this term, except maybe a few radicals on tumblr who like making up their own language. Whoever wrote the article listed in the source is probably the same person who wrote the entry. In any case, the fact that it's no different than a regular straw man fallacy should be enough to get it deleted. If entering the term gets someone redirected to the strawman fallacy article that would be far more appropriate than allowing feminist wordsmiths to get away with making Wikipedia entries for their word creations, which are most likely intended to direct traffic to their blogs anyway. I have no issue issue with the subject of feminism being written about objectively on Wikipedia. I am not someone who would try to get an article taken down because I disagree with the ideology it describes. What I do object to is those who espouse such ideologies using a supposedly neutral forum to spread their cult nonsense. -Guts Knucklebone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:FD47:385E:EDE5:A960 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 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. Overall consensus, both directly stated and implied (in the last !vote) is that the subject is presumed notable per

WP:NRU. North America1000 18:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Giorgi Pruidze

Giorgi Pruidze (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 player does not meet the criteria of notability as per

WP:CCS he has never played for his country and has only played for 1 season in a minor club Domdeparis (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Played at

WP:NRU (although that has not been updated for 2015). Since this is a Georgian subject, sources in English will be hard to find, so I am comfortable with the presumption that sources do exist. Therefore, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- Nominator has has facts wrong. Player meets the notability criteria. Nominator should withdraw the nomination. CUA 27 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi CUA 27 the nominator (myself) did not have his facts wrong when he nominated the article because there was nothing about his participation in the world cup at the time...This was all the article contained at the time

Giorgi Pruidze (born June 2, 1994) is a Georgian Rugby Union player. His position is Wing and he currently plays for AIA Kutaisi in the Georgia Championship and the Georgia national team.[1][2] If you'd taken the time to check you would have seen that. I carried out a search on the web and found nothing which is not surprising as he played in total 1 match for 11 minutes during the world cup. The article needs a lot of work done to it. i would be perfectly happy if you consider that he meets the criteria

WP:NRU are just a guideline. Domdeparis (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I understand where you are coming from, but the fact that the article was significantly incomplete last week is not a good reason to delete it today. For articles like these, the best bet usually is to slap a {{
refimprove}} template on the article and give others a reasonable opportunity to add content and cites, before going to Afd. On a semi-related note, User:RonSigPi's point struck me — it's much easier to find English-language articles on American and Canadian players than on Georgian players; I wish I had a satisfying solution to propose in terms of how we assess notability. CUA 27 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NRU I mean). If a Georgian player who plays for a Georgian club and the Georgian national team is not considered by Georgian language editors important enough to create an article in Georgian where is the justification for an article in English if he doesn't fill the particular criteria (I am speaking in general as apparently this player just struggles in by 11 minutes) The remark from User:RonSigPi that he is comfortable to presume that the sources exist seems a little dangerous as that would mean that we must accept any un-sourced article about a foreign language subject on the presumption that the sources probably exist... Domdeparis (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The basic criteria for
WP:NRU I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

But he does have a page in the Georgian language. See here. So your argument that since he doesn't have a page in the Georgian language he therefore doesn't merit a page in the English language can now be put to bed. The bottom line is that the player meets

WP:NRU criteria, and his notability is further supported by the fact that this articles now has eight cites. CUA 27 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Hi
list the articles have to be notable and as RonSigPi rightly states the community has worked together to create this guideline of notability and if you feel that it should be changed there is a discussion page for that. Domdeparis (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article was AfD'd in good faith by Domdeparis based on how it stood at the time. Notability has subsequently been established and the article can be retained. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 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. czar 05:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loopwhole Beats (Hip Hop Producer)

Loopwhole Beats (Hip Hop Producer) (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)

Promotional piece for a completely non-notable producer. Fails

• speak up • 17:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:00, 4 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anzor Sitchinava

Anzor Sitchinava (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 player does not meet the criteria of notability as per

WP:CCS he has never played for his country and has only played for 1 season in a minor club. Domdeparis (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Just another meaningless sports statistic about one more player. Terse, no valued content, unremarkable, reference is pathetic. Please, Speedy delete.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, and as a bonus the one link provided has NOTHING on the subject whatsoever.
    • speak up • 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Webserver

Sioux Webserver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; I could not find any reliable sources regarding either Sioux Webserver for DOS, or the "high secure version of Apache HTTP server". Fails

WP:GNG. Sunmist (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:08, 4 November 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 to me) 03:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Honey Creek Elementary School

Honey Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local elementary school that lacks any reason to be included. I redirected to the Rockdale County School District when it came up on NPP but that has been reverted by an IP editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am at a conference learning about Wikipedia school I teach at was not linked to district am working on site with my phone only at this time want to incorporate the history of the school what we are currently about with photos and other forms of media. JoshPren (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony just saw your message to me ....it's a bummer just got overly excited...thanks for the redirectionJoshPren (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:01, 4 November 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. czar 15:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftos

Shiftos (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 - possibly should have been speedied as A11. PamD 14:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:03, 4 November 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 04:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch, Please!

Pitch, Please! (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:NMUSIC. Hasn't won any major awards, nor charted in any country. No albums from any major labels. -- Darth Mike (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I wouldn't contest the cultural signifance of Collegiate a Capella in general. But this article does have that distinctive promotional/adverstising flair that one sees too often on WP. I realize other such groups do have an article, but I think these exclusionary examples from Criteria should be considered:

"Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble TALKS ABOUT THEMSELVES, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]" The refs are such material.

"Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or TRACK LISTINGS, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories."

I'd say this article definitely should be considered in light of these guidelines. I don't know the worthiness of the other such pages, but I'd say, this one based on its own merits should at a minimum be rewritten to bring it more in line with current guidelines. There seems to be no distinguishing features that justify this article beyond its own self-aggrandizement. The listed awards apparently do not have any external sources that support their implied significance beyond their own artistic domain. In the absence of a rewrite I would ask for a delete.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:02, 4 November 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) 10:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid rostami

Farshid rostami (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 be a notable boxer. A search for reliable sources failed to find anything specifically about him, only a handful of videos and boxing website profiles.

csdnew 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 13:33, 4 November 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. Cannot delete the others as they were not tagged with an AfD mesage.  Sandstein  14:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3

Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bus routes, All fail GNG, –Davey2010Talk 13:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:
I've split the column into 2 to make the page viewing easier, I've only nominated those that are extremely poor sourcing and couldn't find anything on each individual bus route, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I generally agree with
    WP:BUSOUTCOMES that ordinary bus routes along ordinary streets are not considered to be notable unless they can be shown to have something notable about them. I don't believe any of these meet that standard. JMWt (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all except
    West Midlands bus route 11. The outer circle is beyond any reasonable doubt notable. (In fact may I ask you if you'd consider removing that from the nom?). All the others simply have no notability, even the inner circle (8) Jeni (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WM 8 has a commercially published book specifically about it, incorrectly in the "See also" section. You might need to withdraw that too.Charles (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One book doesn't automatically make the route notable, You've never !voted keep on any bus route here so I'm assuming this is something to do with me !voting Keep on the DYK bus route ?, If you want you could always submit a DYK and have that article kept :) –Davey2010Talk 18:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no wish to keep it and this is nothing to do with your previous vote. I have recently pointed out that that routes have to be treated on their own merits so it would be a bit hypocritical to vote for a mass deletion. If none of them is shown to be notable in a few days I likely will do though.Charles (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -Bloody hell, that's a lot of bus routes for deletion! But none of them seem to be notable. Is there a page we can redirect them to (e.g. A list of bus routes)?. Class455 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Express (which would be pointless as these aren't even mentioned there), Other than that I don't think there's anywhere else these can be redirected too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:54, 4 November 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) 10:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ascoe

Karen Ascoe (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, Article's been unsourced since its creation (2007) and I can't find anything notability-wise, There's a few mentions and one source about her being friends with Sian Blake who died but other than that there's nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010Talk 16:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails NACTOR and GNG. anemoneprojectors 20:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable actress, while no effort has ever been made to improve the article since its creation.
    • speak up • 01:22, 6 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Balli

Dominic Balli (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 artist, doesn't meet

WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Yintan  21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, I agree that this article fails notability as well. There has been no significant coverage from a number of notable sources. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant media coverage. Albums have not charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:14, 6 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meagher (merchant)

Thomas Meagher (merchant) (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: as non-notable merchant. Grandfather of

notability by Wikipedia standards. Quis separabit? 16:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:47, 4 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Buck

William Buck (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 couldn't establish that he is

WP:NOTABLE, although sources may not be on the Internet. Tagged for notability for 5 years, hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMO Smmurphy has proved notability, so my housekeeping-type comment is now irrelevant. Narky Blert (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the dab-page. "William F Buck" could usefully appear in the list, but essentially he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Retrosheet is reliable, but routine. We can be confident this information is accurate, contrary to Chris troutman's concerns, but the coverage there is routine game reports. Not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Does he meat Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball? Particularly the 5th criteria, "5. Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff." That is, is the National Association a regular league? I don't know what a umpire on a staff is, does appearing in boxscores count as being on a staff? I am very close to !voting delete, for the reasons given above, but I'm curious. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a "William F. Henley Buck" who was the captain of the Princeton baseball club in 1870 [14] and died in 1890 [15]. I'm not sure if this is the same person, nor do either of these facts have much bearing on notability. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now sure it is the same person. Buck played for the Baltimore Pastime in 1871.[16] The Pastime were a professional team in 1870 (see 1870 in baseball) and played against teams which were a part of the National Association in 1871, but I don't see further mention of them in Wikipedia. The National Association, which is covered by the notability page I linked, formed in 1871. Buck played in games against teams listed as national association teams, the Olympics (genealogybank finds: Base Ball, Evening Star (Washington (DC), District of Columbia) Friday, October 6, 1871, Page: 4) and the Athletics.[17] He also umpired in an amateur game that season between Harvard and Brown (genealogybank finds: Base Ball, Boston Journal (Boston, Massachusetts), Monday, May 15, 1871 , Volume: XXXVIII Issue: 12729 Page: 1). I think playing for the Baltimore Pastime in 1871 and his umpire work in National Association games and being captain of a top amateur team (Princeton 1870) counts as being a professional baseball player at the highest level and have changed my !vote to keep. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the page, he also played for the Baltimore Marylands, it seems. The Princeton University book citations I added aren't great in terms of establishing notability (every member of Princeton's class of 1870 has a biography, I think, in one of them), and the newspapers.com based citations are routine if we think of him as an amateur and semi-pro player. But taken together, plus evidence he played for the Marylands, which was a top division team, I think implies notability, both gng and nsports. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:45, 10 November 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Shannon Schambeau

Shannon Schambeau (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)

Her winning the Miss DC title only gets coverage as far as I can tell from her hometown papers in Flordia, not even from the DC press. The rest of her life gets virtually no coverage. Her marriage to John Patterson gets very minor coverage, but more because he is notable than anything else. There is no justification for a stand alone article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per outcomes of discussions on comparative subjects; nothing stands out about this & strictly a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 4 November 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.  Sandstein  14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lehren

Lehren (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 here. The usual own web-site links plus several press releases about take overs, and peripheral mentions in articles about other things. Nothing here that adds up to notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not sure on notability, but I am adding some sources where I can find them. It's an Indian company, so I am guessing that English web searches may not be the best way of finding references. Basil Monster 22:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Monster (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Upon further research, this is a broadcast television station (see here : www.india-forums.com/tellybuzz/news-releases/2070-lehren-india-first-24x7-showbiz-news-and-entertainment-channel.htm). Under
    Mumbai, India would count as a television station serving a major regional market. The quote of interest would be: "The vast majority of over-the-air television stations serve a large regional market, often covering millions of households ... Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." Sources are sparse here, but notability protocols would seem to indicate that Lehren is notable. It should, I think, be transitioned to a page about the station possibly to clarify this. Wikipedia could also transition this to talk about the Lehren nationally broadcast television show from the 1990s. That would qualify under the same policy. Basil Monster 22:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Monster
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 4 November 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Tel 9500

X-Tel 9500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:31, 4 November 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Tel 7500

X-Tel 7500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 4 November 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 low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Harper and the Moths

AfDs for this article:
Harper and the Moths (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, with some advertorial overtones, about a band with no strong claim of notability per

conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's keyboardist. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:28, 4 November 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared & The Mill

Jared & The Mill (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 band which essentially just states that they exist, makes no claim of notability that would actually satisfy

primary source website about themselves and to an AllMusic bio. As always, the existence of an AllMusic bio is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia in and of itself -- their inclusion criteria permit any musical act that has released a recording, while ours are quite a bit more restrictive. So AllMusic would be acceptable as one source amid a diversity of reliable sources, but it does not get a band into Wikipedia by itself if it's the article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clear from the rationale above that the nominator judged notability solely from the contents of the article, but notability is determined by the coverage that exists, not what is cited. A
    WP:BEFORE search could have found coverage from multiple sources, including [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. --Michig (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep reliable sources found for the notability 87.114.101.178 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as not only are the current listed links in the article unconvincing, the ones above literally contain event listings or interviews, and while that may be common in news, it still shows the bareness of no actual independent and substantial news, therefore I would suggest at least Drafting until we have better substance. One note is the fact the WashingtonCityPaper is not only in itself a local event guide, but the sentences are only a few sentences and, as followed, the other links are noticeably simply interviews or event listings (the first one is an event listing, for starters, as are followed by every until the end "[Band] comes [locally]"), focused with exactly that. Therefore, to answer the IP's comment above of the bare "Reliable sources for notability" is not the case if they are simply contents of interviews and event listings, which in this matter, are not substance because they are (1) simply words by the subject themselves and (2) event listings for local places. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:NPA, I specifically listed the concerns above and including the quoted information from those sources, hence I thoroughly analyzed this. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 14 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molpay

Molpay (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)

Article is created to promote itself. questionable coverage and references. nothing like an encyclopedic notable. Article is just detail press comprise into an short article. Even added their booklet. Light2021 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this was somehow "reviewed and accepted" last year and tagged but it should've in fact been nominated for deletion as a skillfully informed user aware of advertising would, because that's especially what all of this is and there's nothing to suggest anything otherwise, since the information and sources are still in fact advertising overall
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 11 November 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dgtl Concepts

Dgtl Concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional article.....

❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break Nine: World Billiards Tournament

Break Nine: World Billiards Tournament (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-

video game-related sources online, but there may be some offline sources (as it was released in 2002). If this is the case, {{ping}} me. Barely edited since its creation in 2010, with no signs of improvement. I've checked HighBeam and Questia just in case they happened to have anything, which they didn't. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 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) 10:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gularia Ghat

Gularia Ghat (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)

Prod declined, so starting an AfD discussion. Not finding any coverage whatsoever in reliable sources for the Gularia Ghat marketplace; fails

WP:N. North America1000 09:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:19, 4 November 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Homeless Voice

The Homeless Voice (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)

Paid

local interest coverage. A search found nothing good for notability for this newspaper. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like it was more than a newspaper for a while there - it was also a homeless shelter that received no small amount of criticism.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Look at the CNN article. What more is needed than that? Its received national coverage. Remove the self-promotion and keep. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was created by a
    Anup [Talk] 02:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
uh, missed that. It should be kept then.
Anup [Talk] 14:00, 10 November 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 04:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Technology

Harris Technology (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)

From tone of writing to non-notable company. No references are found to this degree of claims made by this company. Highly and only promotional. No Encyclopedic notability. The company that acquired even non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I will reserve !vote for now, but here is some press that may be relevant [35] [36]. Appears that it merged with Shoply and Anyware so not sure what the current name of all three are. I removed some puffery from the page. I also believe from the articles it is publicly traded. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the links above are still only advertising the company from either its own words or republished, none of it convincing or substantial, my own searches are finding exactly this and so we cannot accept it as actual meaningful sources; the article itself is noticeably advert-formatted and the enormously large number of advertising-only accounts certainly emphasize this, therefore we take no compromises with such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- largely unreferenced promo copy on an unremarkable tech company. No value to the project;
    WP:TNT this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trains of East Coast Railway (India)

Trains of East Coast Railway (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per

WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for this article (as Wikipedia is not a directory) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:34, 4 November 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. North America1000 05:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olufela Olomola

Olufela Olomola (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)

Duplicate of an unpublished article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kő_Cloch/Olufela_Olomola)

talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. What makes that grounds for deletion? Just merge any additional content from your draft. Sussexpeople (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest having not played a Premier League game for the first team, at the very least both my article and the imposter article should stay always remain unpublished. Who are you to say that a duplicate article should be merged with my (original)? You're not impartial!
talk) 18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Striking sockpuppet vote. --
talk 14:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has played a fully pro game so meets NFOOTY Spiderone 20:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as he has played in the Premier League. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his only first team match to date was in the League Cup. Sussexpeople (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet GNG. The two independent refs do not mention him in any detail. Eldumpo (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Longstanding consensus exists that playing in a cup match between teams from fully professional teams meets
    WP:GNG
    , but the lead section includes the following:
A topic is
presumed
to merit an article if:
  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the
    What Wikipedia is not
    policy.
I've highlighted the either ... or bit, because it's the bit people sometimes forget. What it means is, there's no difference between the presumption of notability afforded by a subject-specific guideline and that offered by the general guideline.

I'd advise nominator to choose their words more carefully when suggesting another editor has created a duplicate of their sandbox draft. They haven't. They've created a basic stub about a newly notable subject and put it live. If they'd copypasted the draft without attribution, that'd need fixing, but they haven't. Perhaps nominator might consider taking any worthwhile, neutrally written, reliably sourced content from their draft and using it to improve the encyclopedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT says "...standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Eldumpo (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, and so they should. It also says, higher up:
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a
general notability guideline
, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
Bolding original. What it doesn't say, is that even if the subject of an article at AfD is shown to meet the subject-specific guideline, that article must also, at the time of the AfD, demonstrate sufficient independent reliable non-trivial coverage to meet the GNG. If it did, there wouldn't be much point having subject-specific notability guidelines. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it basically does, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. We try very hard with the wording to make it clear that meeting NSPORTS isn't a notability pass, it is just a guide as to when it is likely to pass GNG which ultimately gives the notability. This is something that is clarified for editors ad nauseum on the talkpage of NSPORTS. That meeting it only gives a short term reprieve to find sources but they do eventually have to be found and that someone can put a "call" in eventually to proove the article does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think anyone's suggesting that passing NSPORT means an article must be kept, but "eventually" is a judgment call: there's long-time consensus at footballer AfDs, in theory and in practice, that where an article has existed for some time for a player who passes NFOOTY but no evidence is produced for their receiving the sort of coverage that would pass GNG, the article is deleted. This AfD was launched within 20 hours of its creation: its creator is inexperienced and probably doesn't know what the fuss is about, and the editor who has done some research on the subject won't share it because someone else created the page first... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
What are you talking about GiantSnowman? If Wikipedia didn't have policies that prevent articles from meeting a certain criteria for submission then we would not be having this debate right now - however on the other hand there would be far too many stub articles or less notable articles available on Wikipedia and that would make for huge task to sort it out. On the contrary, why on earth are you suggesting that there'sno reason to delete the duplicate article. I don't care whether somebody copied and pasted it or not, the point is it was my work and due to in eligibility of the article given that Olomola has not yet played a senior game in the Premier League. This is why I did not publish the article, as I knew it would be under a lot of scrutiny because of this. It's safe to say that you can't rely on others to be sensitive to this issue and understand that the second Olomola article was created without having consulted me first. That is why I see no right for either GiantSnowman or Struway2 to comment on the issue having not even noticed my comment what is the current stance on Premier League 2? Why do you choose to ignore my requests for help but will happily intervene with an issue that doesn't concern you? Get rid of the second article as it is no more eligible than my original. I am LIVID!!

talk) 14:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

My article created in August 2016 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fela_Olomola) I have already added more detail to the player's biography and was waiting for the opportunity to publish my work ... then I discover that another user can slyly get away with making their own even though it was no more eligible than mine!

And what of this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kő_Cloch/Antonio_Martínez) I take it I am expected to sit back and wait for another individual to pave over my work and receive credit for it!?

Hi @
WP:OWNERSHIP, it really doesn't matter who starts and article. If you feel so passionately about this article you can still add content to it or add it to your watchlist. Remember that Deletion is not cleanup. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:33, 4 November 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) 10:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Allgood

Joseph Allgood (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 enough coverage in

notable by Wikipedia standards. The tournament named after him should have generated some biographical coverage but I could not find any. JbhTalk 18:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 18:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 18:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails gng -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no inherited notability to the level of actually establish his own article, and there's also nothing substantiating an overall convincing and significant article for himself as it is. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:32, 4 November 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Nearu

AfDs for this article:
Nearu (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 martial art created as a hybrid of several. No indication of notability or wide spread coverage. Typical let's invent a martial art that should have been speedied upon recreation. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing any indication that this is a notable martial art. It doesn't appear to be widespread or have significant practitioners. I'm also suspicious of a new martial art that was created by someone who reputedly learned it in the Himalayas from the teachings of a dead Tibetan master. I don't see significant independent coverage of this art, although I must admit Google translate didn't help me with the Persian articles. However, the titles don't appear to show significance (just lists of associations and martial artists). I'm willing to change my mind if significant independent coverage can be shown, but the burden of proof is on the article's creators. Papaursa (talk) 11:27, 5 November 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy (Rockets album)

Galaxy (Rockets album) (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)

Unsourced article with no substantive information. No evidence that it meets

WP:NALBUM guidelines. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hasn't charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the contrary, the single Galactica went to #1 of the national charts in Italy and the album went platinum in 1980. At least inform yourself if you're going to have an opinion. http://www.lesrockets.com/p_flashback8_13b.jpg 87.13.127.127 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while I cannot find independent evidences of the single "Galactica" going #1, I found evidences of the album we are discussing going
    platinum and selling over 1 million copies in a Corriere della Sera article I just added to the page (the same article also describes the album as "legendary"). While weakly charting albums could be certainly redirect to their parent articles, an album by a major band which was so successful appears to be certainly notable enough for a separate article. Cavarrone 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:NALBUM criterion #2 at the very least, per Cavarrone's source. There's still room for improvement on sourcing for the album's platinum status, but there's enough here now for the article to stay. --Finngall talk 19:13, 7 November 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. czar 05:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DMT THE Rapper (rapper)

DMT THE Rapper (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)

I couldn't establish that he meets

WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Vineetpl7 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)As I have created this page, I think that this page should be consider as notable as he has won the award for best performance in BET Blaze The Stage Competition 2012.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:27, 4 November 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) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The Jason Stapleton Program

The Jason Stapleton Program (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 can't find any references to support the notability of this program. All the references are self published. It claims to be "the most downloaded podcast in the world" but that is only sourced back to the author's self-published bio. Note that the author has only ever worked on this article and the one about its "star", Jason Stapleton. Gronk Oz (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some time to make some changes and add more sources? Some references are self published by the Program as the wiki article is simply describing what the show talks about. It did not say "the most downloaded podcast in the world" but rather "contends to be the most downloaded libertarian podcast in the world". While this is true, there currently is no published source so I will remove it. This is my first article, but have been a user of Wikipedia for over a decade and have made edits with an older account. fingrpickr (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes to adhere to the policy. Can you please let me know if anything seems incorrect? There remains a few self references, ie. explaining when the show started, but these are self evident facts. If it looks good, can we remove the banner? Thanks. fingrpickr (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is not to be an advertisement. This podcast has over 30,000 daily listeners, so much like the

Rubin Report page it simply exists to inform the general public of what the show is and who he is. I fail the litmus test to see what remains that is an advertisement. All information has been referenced by external sources, including FreedomWorks and Westwood One. Can you please explain so I can make changes, or otherwise remove the banners from both pages. Thanks. fingrpickr (talk) 23:36, 4 November 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. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations

AfDs for this article:
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 sources proving that any of these pronunciations are "counterintuitive". Previous AFDs kept per

WP:ILIKEIT, and other valid arguments.Sources were pointed out, but their relevance to the topic is dubious, and no one has been bothered to actually shell them out if they even do exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep: As I said last time, I don't particularly like this article. In fact I have it on my watchlist only because I once found some nonsense on it and removed this. However, there are people who want to keep it – this is clear from the four previous attempts to get rid of it – and so I think it should stay. LynwoodF (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LynwoodF: So "Keep it because I think it should be kept". What about sources? Where are they? Where is any source verifying the "counterintuitive" nature? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "Keep it because there are other people who want to keep it". LynwoodF (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Information on how to pronounce each name should be in its own article, along with any controversies related. But a list of words based on pronunciation? I don't see how that has a place in an encyclopedia with a policy not to be a dictionary.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/2008-05-10
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=3RMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=g-unit+i+like+the+way+she+do+it+%22street+radio%22+interscope&source=bl&ots=isTaRgf_G2&sig=6B-wGi9PQTGbztLRjVZq-8DFyG0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjum83Oj_nPAhVID8AKHe--ANIQ6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=g-unit%20i%20like%20the%20way%20she%20do%20it%20%22street%20radio%22%20interscope&f=false
  3. ^ https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=strength+and+loyalty#search_section
  4. ISBN 9814484792
    . This list is not exhaustive by any means, but but includes names whose local pronunciation may be deemed to be counterintuitive by speakers of other languages.
  5. ISBN 1316824691
    . (Discussing the "counter-intuitive pronunciation" of the word "netsuke.")
  6. ISBN 1604693983
    . (Discussing the controversial nature of plant name pronunciations.)
  7. ISBN 025321064X
    . The name Yamashita is sometimes pronounced as in Italian = [yah-mah-shee-tah], but it is actually [yah-mahsh-tah].
  • @Spiderone: So is anyone going to add them to the article, or are we just going to keep going around in circles forever? Or are you expecting to just magically add themselves? If you think the article is salvageable, then fix the fucking thing, don't just sit on your hands and expect everyone else to do it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:00, 13 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Palma Domingo

Francisco Palma Domingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see any articles or news about him in the internet. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 04:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 7 November 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) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Bandiera

Jackson Bandiera (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 and NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully pro league. Simione001 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Simione001 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 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) 12:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Radiša Čubrić

Radiša Čubrić (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: as

athlete. Quis separabit? 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per

WP:CYC #3 --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:03, 4 November 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

Geneva Conference (1954). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Geneva Agreements

Geneva Agreements (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 pretty surprised to stumble across this article, as very few pages link to it.

Geneva Conference (1954)—and was obviously created by someone completely unaware of the latter. Having both is redundant. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the last two. Geneva is a common venue for international conferences, treaties, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect There seems to be some salvageable content to move over but the subject is already discussed in the Geneva Conference (1954) article. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:22, 7 November 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) 10:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daouda Bamba

Daouda Bamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

Tippeligaen, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 4 November 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 Tony Hawks. No merge needed because all relevant info is already in the target article. Cerebellum (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the Moldovans at Tennis

Playing the Moldovans at Tennis (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)

After several years, the article still has no sources and no external links. There's no information synthesis here that wouldn't be obtained from the IMDb page; just a list of the plot and cast/crew members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irregulargalaxies (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is certainly notable, more so than the film, so this would better be refactored as an article about the book with the film being covered as an adaptation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tony Hawks - I don't think the film is notable (it had a very limited distribution), but there seem to be plenty of references to the book about (and I have read it myself). However, the book is summarised adequately in the Tony Hawks article. It isn't one of those cases where the movie is more notable than the source book, the book is definitely more notable than the movie.. and if the book doesn't merit an entry than it's hard to see a justification for this one. Any usable material could be merged into Tony Hawks. Shritwod (talk) 09:49, 23 November 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) 10:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Garg

Ajay Garg (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)

Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article for this Indian artist. Does not meet

WP:CREATIVE. I found this source from The Times of India, but that's about it. North America1000 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A total lack of sources to establish notability. Also, what is with saying he was born in 1452?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In addition to one found by nominator, I got the other two - [38], [39]. However, it appears to me that he doesn't meet
    Anup [Talk] 21:32, 5 November 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsed gas dynamic spray process

Pulsed gas dynamic spray process (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 the opening para of a patent application - bigging up the idea, acknowledging prior art, but without providing any real evidence of notability of the idea. (Full disclosure: retired patent attorney.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone even find the patent application? because I can't. And the title of the article is a classic patent application-type title. Narky Blert (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should also have said - the references don't look to me like references in the Wiki sense, more like prior art in the patent attorney's sense. Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some possible copyvio, as there are some sentences that are an exact match to some prose in a paper figure caption,[40] for example, the sentence containing it is envisioned that this process would allow the particles to be accelerated to high impact velocities ... The paper is from July 2009 and the WP article is from September 2009. --Mark viking (talk) 02:57, 4 November 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 04:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primaseller

Primaseller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, this cloud-based software falls short of meeting

WP:GNG at this time. North America1000 00:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Music Boy50 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Faulkner

Bobo Faulkner (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)

Article does not really suit wikipedia guidelines neither the subject is Notable. Music Boy50 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator): Which guidelines do you think it "does not really suit"? Regarding notability, subject was the presenter of several national television programs in Australia, columnist in a national broadsheet newspaper, went on to found a successful business in the United States, and was given an obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle (possibly paid) and The Sydney Morning Herald. --Canley (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced and notable.
Cool, But all this which you just said has no independent reliable reference on the article. The name of the subject haven't being discuss on reliable source to prove verification, only found Obituary: Bobo Faulkner. --Music Boy50 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Sydney Morning Herald article (not used as it was written several months later). Every statement is referenced, and there are also at least six other independent, reliable references, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The Chronicle obituary was still published by them, however there is an anonymous comment that it was "paid" in the article history—nonetheless I would consider that a reliable reference. --Canley (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator seems confused: there are a bunch of reliable sources here and a pretty obvious claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina K

Carolina K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources; this subject does not meet

WP:MUSICBIO. North America1000 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails

WP:MUSICBIO. Non Notable musician. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:35, 4 November 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) 10:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makhter Express Bus service

Makhter Express Bus service (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)

Finding zero coverage in reliable sources; fails

WP:N. North America1000 00:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails

WP:N, I am unable to find significant coverage. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:32, 4 November 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 04:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hirschhorn

Doug Hirschhorn (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)

Advertisement for an investment "coach" Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is being used as a vehicle of promotion and the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 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 04:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baraimam pedda Amberpet

Baraimam pedda Amberpet (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)

Supposedly a 300-year-old religious item. I could not find any references mentioning it, though "Bara imam" apparently means something along the lines of "great Imam". Without sources the content is

original research. Huon (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:24, 5 November 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_November_4&oldid=1142621020"