Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 15

Delete, No indicia of encyclopedic notability found. bd2412 T 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately no
WP:GNG. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient information to determine whether the place

WP:GNG. Mz7 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Lol, papua new guinea

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

I can't find any evidence that this place meets

WP:GEOLAND as I don't know if this is legally recognised or not. Adam9007 (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep until evidence is found that it isn't legally recognized.
talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any definitive proof that it exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Weather Channel count? Because it's the only proof I can find that it exists. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only "source" has a disclaimer that states "Information on this page comes without warranty of any kind". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a standard disclaimer found on all sorts of published material, many of which would be considered reliable sources, from technical manuals to travel guides to scientific information services. It just means you can't sue them. Colapeninsula (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to find a good source, yet I
hoax online - get it, LOL? Bearian (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I saw this a while back, but fence sat. Ultimately, I agree with Bearian in that this currently fails
WP:V. The only source in the article is a personal website with an fairly obvious disclaimer attached. Even if it was appropriately sourced, I'd be concerned that it may not expand past a one-line permastub and would be better off redirected to the article about the province it is in. Lastly, deletion doesn't mean it is gone forever - no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources do appear. Fuebaey (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No evidence of notability per
WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biswarup Biswas

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

There is no significant coverage of Biswas, either under the spelling "Biswarup Biswas" or under "Biswaroop Biswas". Sources discussing his films cover him only in passing. I haven't found anything better. Notability is not inherited from the movies. Huon (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One film is generally not enough to make a director notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with John Pack Lambert, One film is generally not enough to make a director notable.--Jobas (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Markeith Loyd

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

Per

WP:NOTNEWS. The article does not establish any notability outside of the first degree murder. Coverage of the murder seems largely local (Orlando). Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

It has received national and international coverage. [6][7][8][9][10]

talk) 22:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheBD2000's providing of sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per
WP:GNG", and BLP takes precedence over GNG when that happens — and alleged but not convicted criminals are one of those situations. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per
WP:BLPCRIME, a crime biography should not stand until a conviction is secured. Loyd may not be notable, but the court case is generating significant controversy. The event may get ongoing attention, but an article about Loyd is premature at best. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and Move to
WP:PRESERVE it is best to let a developing story develop. Is there, perhaps, a template advising editors to keep name of suspect out of the article, until convicted?.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per Bearcat. Until this guy gets convicted, this is a huge BLP liability. Nothing stops us from making a new article at a later time if there is lasting coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as TOOSOON -- there doesn't seem to be substantial coverage yet. But the rule is a little different and morenuanced that what was said above "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." (from WP:N(people). It isn't prohibited, just that it requires caution, and we have had 100s of such articles, though we usually title them ":Murder of X..." t

yo avoid giving the person arrested undue prominence DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small House Plans

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

original research DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge on further review it may be better to delete this and then merge the name with
Tiny house movement DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Speedy delete, it is purely a promotion for a particular website. There's nothing here to merge. Sionk (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changing !vote back to delete per Sionk DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Premier State Youth Gridiron League

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

Does not meet

notability is not inherited. A youth league that existed for three years associated with an adult league that also lasted three years would not seem to be significant enough for an entry here, especially given the lack of sources. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 18:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 18:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 18:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

delete youth league of a sport of very small participation in Australia. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability due to lack of reliable sources and depth of coverage.Knox490 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Smith (American football, born 1983)

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

He might well be notable, but I'm having trouble verifying it. Someone with more expertise on American football might be able to help here. Google searches are hampered by the existence of another player with the same name (here). Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced BLP, trouble verifying. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find evidence that he exists (Pro Football Reference for example has no entry). He certainly didn't make the final roster for the Bengals that year. The timeframe also doesn't make much sense; if he was born in 1983, being in the NFL from 2012-13 would mean that he entered the league at age 29. ansh 666 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a likely hoax. Along with the age issue, there's no such player on the Bengals 2012 roster.[12] There is a article about another Devin Smith on the Bengals website, but he was a 2015 college wide receiver, not a linebacker. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. A 29-year-old rookie simply trying to break into the NFL, much less accomplish it, gets media notice.[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching through the historical player database at nfl.com I found a Devin Smith who was born in 1990 and appeared in one preseason game in 2014 for Pittsburgh. This doesn't match the birth date or team given in the article and appearing in one preseason game is insufficient to meet
WP:NGRIDIRON. The sources given do not support notability or show significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Even if it was a local paper, someone would have written an article on a military veteran getting into the NFL at age 28, and if done in 2012 I am thinking we should at least get some easy indication the article exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kenneth Eng

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

Created by a

WP:BLP1E. There's little to no independent reliable coverage of the subject. The references in the article are largely blogs, self published, or promotional (e.g. the subject's gofundme page). Pburka (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - The article reads like a promotional brochure for Smalltalk. There are no reliable sources and zero independent coverage of the subject. Clearly fails
WP:BLP. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources or depth of coverage. Article appears to be a promotional piece.Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NephCure Foundation

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

I found no significant coverage in multiple searches per

WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

delete advertising brochure, sourced from SPS; there is a lack of independent RS with substantial discussion. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-four (public transport)

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

This is a rather old article, and covers what could be an interesting concept, but the article has never been sourced, and a search through Google Scholar does not show any academic study using the "all-four" terminology. All references to the term that I found using Google are to Wikipedia or its mirrors. The article has been tagged as being unreferenced and as possible

original research for ten years and the issue hasn't been resolved. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete I suspect this is
WP:MADEUP. A quick search of several NYC Subway history sites fails to find any mention of this term. Yes, the BMT had all 4 of the transport modes listed, and did try to treat them as complimentary rather than competitive, but the rest, including the name, is original research at best. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Never heard of this before, if there is proof that can corroborate this information as true it'd be best to integrate it into the existing BMT article. —
talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Good faith, but fails verifiability. oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to
User:Imdanumber1 and oknazevad. If this is a genuine term used within the mass transit industry, I'm not familiar with it. Or if I've heard it before, I forgot about it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This may have been created in good faith, but it is never really used in any type of terminology, even jargon. Google search reveals nothing verifying this topic's notability, per above. epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaco Pieterse

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

An expansive article about an employee for South Africa's animal welfare society sourced largely to the society's official website, plus the Afrikaans Wikipedia, and two incidental news mentions; additional searching fails to find further sources. Mr Pieterse seems like he has done lauditory work and will have a notable future career that will eventually merit a WP page but, as of now, I think this is probably a case of

WP:TOOSOON

that fails

WP:GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. I did my own search for sources, and I didn't find anything that was independent and non-local. I don't think that the sourcing to establish notability is there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just looked at the edit history, and pretty much all of the page creation has been done by accounts that sound very similar to the name of the page subject, so this looks like self-promotion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close.. Please take to

talk) 16:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Lysobacter enzymogenes

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

Get's linked from Lysobacter, so it's a unwanted linking circle. Erykah Badu (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Please take to

talk) 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Lysobacter gummosus

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

Get's linked from Lysobacter, so it's a unwanted linking circle. Erykah Badu (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It may qualify for a speedy deletion criteria or three, but there's clear support here for delete per

WP:SNOW. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Protoverse

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

Poorly written to the point where I hardly know what it's talking about - PROD removed by creator — Chevvin 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article, in it's current state, fails
notability as my Google search did not provide with any credible source that could assert any claim of significance. TopCipher (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Gibberish.
talk) 21:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 21:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. It is a garbage article plain and simple. Knox490 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gibberish. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Gibberish sums it up, nicely. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as all of the above (nonsense/gibberish/hoax/invented/no meaningful content/etc). Additionally, it looks like
WP:SNOW to me. Murph9000 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:SNOW. I wrote a better article than that the last time I accidentally sat on my keyboard. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MSPX (Book Series)

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

Non-notable book from a non-notable author, who's article has also been deleted (a7). Fails

WP:NBOOK. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - Does not meet any notability criteria per
WP:TOOSOON as the book is yet to make an impact to claim significance. TopCipher (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I wish the author well, but this series just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as author has no article, there are no independent references, and I do not have this in my collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet
WP:NBOOK. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (The Remixes)

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

One-section (not counting tracklisting and credits) article of a non-notable subject. Most of the info consists of details only about the original LP, and all of cited review sources don't even mention the remix EP once. Even the chart information about specific remix tracks should move to their respective song articles. This article should merge or redirect to the original LP article at best editorEهեইдအ😎 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Merge per nom; judging from time it was released it didn't chart or do much, so a merge to
chatter) 01:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect and merge – I was actually the creator of the article but I can see how this is not notable. I would like to think I am much wiser now. Carbrera (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- No worries, my friend. You had good intentions. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per

WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

List of LiveJournal users

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

It is unref'd and this is not really fixable: it's been unref'd for over a decade and is basically unreffable. It opens "Some users of LiveJournal, or the journals themselves, have become famous for their especially interesting content..." but there is no ref for any of the entries. Each entry would require a reliable notable source saying "Smith's LiveJournal page has attracted a lot of views and notice" or something. Absent these refs (which mostly probably don't exist) 99% of the entries have to be deleted anyway.

Or if the intent is just "Here are some bluelinked people, and their LiveJournal links" then it's just cruft. And here we have a BLP issue with someone wanting to be removed, and having to fight for it. Not worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N. B.: Its been up for AfD before:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable LiveJournal users (2006 - result No Consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable LiveJournal users (second nomination) (2008 - result Keep)

Comment: This is the third time this has been nominated for deletion, so I'm wondering if this AfD page name should reflect that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The article name was slightly different then, which is why this didn't go in a "third nomination". I listed the previous two at the end of the nom. Herostratus (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced articles that fall foul of the BLP policy don't belong on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, uncited fancruft; does not even remotely pass
WP:LISTN. Looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a viable List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blog site, micro-blog site, website, or web host is notable per se. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- The notion that
  User:Rootology created this article to promote LiveJournal (or that it has been maintained for that purpose) is risible. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge into List of blogs. I suspect that the general subject of LiveJournal users doesn't meet the notability guideline (even considering this as a standalone list forked from the indisputably notable LiveJournal article). If any blogs in this list are independently notable, these could be moved to List of blogs and given appropriate secondary referencing. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What justification do you give to merge an unsourced list of people into an existing article? Exemplo347 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part of my comment about checking each entry for independent notability and adding appropriate secondary referencing? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm asking why you want to merge when you could just add the information you want to add (after you've found the sources) to the List of Blogs article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously nothing to merge, nothing has independent notability or independent citations. See
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
How much checking did you do? Ten seconds of Googling brought up a Wired article all about George R. R. Martin's LiveJournal: [14] What makes you think it's inconceivable that there exist reliable sources for some of the other blogs? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about one item; if you want to try to add that one item to another article, with a citation that you believe supports its addition, go right ahead. As for this current article, in its current uncited condition, there is nothing to merge. Softlavender (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about doing this methodically for all the items, and I'm pretty sure that more of these blogs are independently notable. To give another example, Google Books shows several sources that discuss Cassandra Clare's LiveJournal in depth. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah but the article was created in 2006 and has been up for AfD twice before and nobody has added any refs. One outcome of AfD discussions is an editor(s) volunteering to fix the article and saving if. If you want to generate a list of refs and ref the entries, great, and right now would be the time to get busy. I myself have neither time nor interest in doing something that nobody has cared to do for ten years so far.

But if we quickly generate a list of refs, and an editor will, or will promise to, add the refs and trim out the unref'd entries, that changes the game very much. It would still be reasonable to hold that article is cruft, but the deletion argument would be a lot weaker.

If nobody want to do this now, then it'd be reasonable to vote "Delete, with no prejudice against the article being re-created if and when someone ever wants to generate a properly ref'd article". Herostratus (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I don't know what you mean or who you are talking to. Adding citations that someone's LJ exists does not make this list notable; see

WP:INDISCRIMINATE fancruft with or without citations. Mention of someone's notable LJ blog belongs on the article of that person, not on a list of users of _____; the same applies to users or owners of anything. This is all above and beyond the fact that, as someone else has mentioned here, LJ itself is pretty much no longer heard of these days. Softlavender (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Enh,

WP:LISTN is ignored a lot and rightly so. I mean List of statues of Queen Victoria doesn't need to source to a book saying "Hey, all thost statues of Queen Victoria, taken as a class and considered together, is a really notable phenomena!". And so forth. We're encouraged to make lists as an alternative to categories. And so on. For my part, if someone wants to generate refs for the entries, that's good enough for me. Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Oh good grief, are you really equating List of statues of Queen Victoria with List of MySpace users or List of Ford owners or List of WordPress bloggers? Softlavender (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am! Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This all made me curious and led me to find Powell, Jennifer (2011), "The Dissemination of Commemorative Statues of Queen Victoria", in Curtis, Penelope; Wilson, Keith (eds.), Modern British Sculpture, London: Royal Academy of Arts, pp. 282–288. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion for Livejournal, unsourced and certainly not what the notability of the various list members is dependent on. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of users of a social media website should only be compiled based on what secondary sources say, as to avoid primary sources and potentially original research to deduce the connection of a user account to a real person. While this might be possible for something like Twitter or YouTube, LJ is effectively long-since dead in the water before social media took off, and I have never seen LJ accounts talked about in an type of fashion. Softlavender also does have a point that without secondary sourcing, this can appear promotional. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with the merge proposal, basically per what Exemplo has said (nothing really to merge). Fails
WP:NLIST, but I wouldn't really call it promotional, though I can see how others might interpret it as being along those lines. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- Masem's reasoning is correct: this isn't the sort of thing that comes with secondary sourcing, and our notability standards require this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and
^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the everloving shit out of this. This is not encyclopaedic material and is useless listcruft. Also, per all of the above comments about NLIST and GNG. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All things being equal I'd say the list could be repaired with the addition of secondary sources establishing that these LJs are considered significant in some manner. There appears to be some argument that at least some of these entries could be preserved on that basis. That being said, I wonder whether there'd be enough to justify this list's existence in the end, or whether it would be best to mention the significant journals at the article for LiveJournal itself. I guess this amounts to a very, very weak keep, as I really don't especially care either way. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

WP:LISTN. A list article meets notability if the group or set has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that a single (or more than one) individual's blog, which may happen to be on LiveJournal, may possibly have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject does not make this list notable, it simply makes that blog notable, and it should be listed on that person's article. Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Are you saying that notability of the list will be established if there exist multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover LiveJournal blogs as a group? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he's saying, but I'd say it. LiveJournal is notable, and therefore almost by definition the class "LiveJournal users" is notable, since that's all LiveJournal really is notable as: a collection of user accounts. Selecting a subset of this clearly-notable class, where we have a ref saying "Smith's LiveJournal page is really notable since many people view it and it has materially assisted his notability as a public figure" is at least arguably justified IMO. Herostratus (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"LiveJournal is notable, and therefore almost by definition the class 'LiveJournal users' is notable, since that's all LiveJournal really is notable as: a collection of user accounts." That is incorrect.

Wikipedia is not a catalogue or directory. By your logic, we would have List of Facebook users, List of MySpace users, List of WordPress bloggers, List of Google+ users, List of Blogger users, List of Tumblr users, List of Instagram users, List of SnapChat users, List of Pinterest users, and so on ad infinitum. Softlavender (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Well, its a tough question. To some extent it comes down to opinion. Certainly this article as titled is problematical. However, if it were retitled to something like List of notable LiveJournal accounts... or even maybe better List of notable LiveJournal accounts of notable people to ensure that all the entries were both bluelinked AND had refs showing that their LiveJournal accounts were notable... that could be OK. And my understanding is that's what the article is, or is supposed to be, according to its lede.

So by a similar token we are not going to have List of Facebook users, but I suppose we could have List of persons famous for their Facebook accounts or something. If we wanted to, which is questionable but possible. Herostratus (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting it.

Wikipedia is not a catalogue or directory. We are not going to have a List of notable Facebook users, List of notable MySpace users, List of notable WordPress bloggers, List of notable Google+ users, List of notable Blogger users, List of notable Tumblr users, List of notable Instagram users, List of notable SnapChat users, List of notable Pinterest users, or anything like that (even if worded "famous for their ... accounts"), because of all the polices I just mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Struck !vote from nominator -- your nomination counts as your !vote and therefore nominators do not get to !vote; see

Delete - Fails basic policy of
WP:NOT. CBS527^Talk 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NOT INDISRIMINATE. And do not merge. There are no references in the list except links to their sites, there is no evidence in the list not in most cases in the articles, that the individuals' livejournals are of any particular significance either among Livejournals, or even among the individual's various social media. Live journal is notable, but that doesn't make a list of users notable any more than Wikipedia being notable makes a list of Wikipedia editors notable. We do have a list of Wikipedians with articles,
Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, but its in WP space--it would be immediately deleted in article space--and it rightly says its not authoritative enough to use as a reference in WP. Nor can we say that using Livejournal lends any particular notability or prominence--according ot the article on it, there are 10 million users. We might almost as well have a list of Facebook users, including every celebrity with a Facebook account, or a list of gmail users. I find it almost incredible that wt was kept in 2008, and I am particularly startled to see that I !voted weak keep at the time. All I can say in my own defense is that I am glad to know that since then my standards have risen along with WPs. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete as nom.~~ Don't count me twice, I'm adding my "vote" here to clarify that I still think the article should go, even though I've argued above that if you added sourcing then you could consider the article OK. You could, but I don't. I don't think it is going to be ref'd (we've had ten years) unless somebody does it right now (count me out), and even then it'd probably be unnecessary cruft and problematic on
WP:BLP grounds. Herostratus (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note Even if someone can provide an independent, reliable source that says people use LiveJournal, and provides their user names... so what? Maybe it can also be proved (how?) that their use of LiveJournal is notable, but... so what? That won't make this article suitable for inclusion - it will still just be an indiscriminate list. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that argument not apply equally well to any sort of list of works by publishing venue, such as List of programs broadcast by CBS or List of magazines published by MediaWorks? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is only about this particular article. Per

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there's no value in discussing other articles during an AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not say that. (In fact, it contains a pretty large section on example cases where it is valuable to reference precedents in other articles.) Regardless, I am not arguing that the article should be kept because other stuff exists. I am trying to point out that your particular argument is doesn't seem to be grounded in the notability guideline for lists. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

No. Those items are selected, paid for, produced, curated, edited, and sequenced (or most of the above) by the company in question. Softlavender (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of which was mentioned in Exemplo347's argument… —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have to be. You asked a question; it was answered. Softlavender (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic for an article.Knox490 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no more distinct of a characteristic than having any other social media account. bd2412 T 03:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:BLP. Trivial. Fancruft. All in all, a pretty good template for what a Wikipedia list article ought not to be. David in DC (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered Money

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

There is only one official government portal for finding unclaimed funds, MissingMoney.com. Virtually all other entities purporting to provide this service are some kind of scam (as stated in the Washington Post article cited in MissingMoney.com). This is evident in comparing the available sources. Discovered Money has for its sources a half dozen "testimonials" hosted on its own website, links to its own Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube accounts, a dead link, and a passing mention in a minor local newspaper. bd2412 T 14:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No found significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 22:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete
chatter) 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I was unable to find reference to this organisation in reliable, third party sources and I think it fails
WP:GNG. The testimonials are all eight years old and similarly worded and I view the organisation with suspicion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of parliamentary speakers in the Americas in 1984

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

Per

WP:WHIM basically. (Test case as there are a number of other similar lists which I may nominate if the consensus is that they should go.) Amisom (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly speaking this isn't exactly
verify the accuracy of the information. It also misses the fact that several of the people listed took office in 1984, while failing to list the person or people who held the position for the preceding portion of 1984 — frex, Canada can't just list John Bosley (November-December 1984) while eliding Jeanne Sauvé (January 1984) and Lloyd Francis (January-November 1984), and Canada's not even the only country in the list where that's an issue (it's just the only one where Bearcat the Canadian doesn't have to dig to find who's missing). Unlike national heads of state, this is not a role where the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons and the Speaker of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies are ever going to collaborate across international borders — so it's not a role where we need crossnational lists by year. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Maybe I am lost as to the purpose of the article. If someone can give me any reason this list is important, I'm all ears, ping me. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mbakkel2 Since you created the article, can you give me a hint why we would want to keep it? You seemed to be interested in lists like. How are they useful? Can you show me one of these lists that gets lots of page views? That might help convince me it is a valuable resource. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From July 2015-July 2016, guess how many people looked at it? [15]. That's right! Zero! --David Tornheim (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mackaronis

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

BLP failing
WP:GNG
(no independent sources).
WP:NOT Ad. (SPA creator, presum COI promo) Widefox; talk 13:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find much about him with quick BEFORE. What I do find (not sure if same Mackaronis) - is pretty bad and isn't mentioned in the article - [16], [17]. Wiki page probably created to whitewash those down google results list.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heavily promotional. Ref 1 does not support one word of the paragraph citing it. Refs 2 & 4 are puff-pieces for Brabble making no mention of Mackaronis (Ref 4 indeed gives other names for the founder and the CEO), while Refs 3 & 5 are self-published, leaving us with a BLP without any reliable sourcing: Noyster (talk), 23:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

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

Article on a Facebook page --- yes, a *Facebook page* --- created with great sturm und drang in 2012. Much drama at the time, including intervention by Jimbo and a non-consensus AfD. Failed

WP:PERSISTENCE. There is a section on CREWE at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, which is more than enough. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Note: either deletion or redirect is perfectly OK with nominator. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep Seems to still be active, seems to be enough sources to pass
WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

No, not even close, not for GNG and certainly ORG. Blogs (including a "Forbes article" that is a user-contributed blog, not staff-written), ridiculous sourcing to Wikipedia itself, and incidental mentions in articles on the general issue. The most widely cited articles are a Techdirt blog that doesn't mention CREWE, and that non-staff written Forbes.com blog[18]. And then there is the overriding issue that this is an article about a Facebook page, not an organization. Because there isn't any. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement where the subject is mentioned. Not independently notable & no need to have this covered in two articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. cK.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per K.e.coffman. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I am involved with CREWE, and I was always rather skeptical of this article's existence. I think the redirect is the most appropriate outcome. WWB (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I am the founder of CREWE and I think that the article doesn't meet notability criteria. Happy that someone thought to write it but... yeah... Redirect. -- Philgomes (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP space. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Move to Wikipedia project space. Being in project space has the advantage of linking to other Wikipedia: namespace pages, which seems to have been an issue with this page in the past. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia project space and redirect the article title per K.e.coffman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. Moving to WP project space doesn't help the average reader. BTW, I am one of the 752 members of CREWE. I am also a member of a Bill Maher fan group on Facebook that is larger than that. Of course, Maher is a very popular guy, he's the best, but it just shows how relatively small CREWE is, and how disproportionally sized this article is in relation to the group's total membership. (Also, this is really a meta-discussion, since we are talking about conflict-of-interest editing and I, as well as several !voters, have a potential conflict of interest just by being in the group.) So, in conclusion, redirect. epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy While article has RS, they are linked to a specific moment in time - a tight time frame in 2012 - which may not meet the breadth of coverage required by GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DarjeelingTea: Just for clarification, which user's namespace would you place it in? If it doesn't go to the creator (Ocaasi), it would go to Wikipedia space if no user is willing to host it. epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to COI on Wikipedia in the appropriate section. Agree the organization did not 'take off' past it's initial burst of coverage. I don't know what it will do in my userspace since I'm rarely dealing with any COI issues these days. No objection to a separate WP:CREWE page for info and link to facebook or signups or whatever people want to do with it. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMX-25

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

Delete Lacks notability. Not found outside of blogs or one mention in a Russian article on a Euronaval conference. This appears to be the only article that explicitly discusses this vessel: "French ships of the future: SMX-25 and ADVANSEA" in Army Herald, 2010 (in Russian). One mention in a reliable source does not make the topic notable. User:HopsonRoad 13:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

RÉMY MAUCOURT "DCNS présente un nouveau concept-ship sous-marin au salon Euronaval", L'Usine Nouvelle PUBLIÉ LE 29/10/2010 À 16H10.

Comment Sources In French and English:

"SMX-25 : DCNS dévoile son concept de sous-marin de surface" Mer e Marine (undated)

"Le SMX-25, le dernier concept de sous-marin de DCNS" Zone militaire Posté dans Forces navales, Industrie par Laurent Lagneau Le 08-10-2010

"DCNS-Lorient (56). Un sous-marin de surface présenté à Euronaval" Investigations Oanis et Oceanographiee le :26/02/2013 .

http://en.dcnsgroup.com/technology-innovation/smx-25/

http://www.dsi-presse.com/?paged=5

http://www.airgroup2000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5985325

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/80759-euronaval-2010-a.html

"Das Boot? Das Running Shoe, More Like" Secret Projects Posted by Bill Sweetman at 5/24/2011 --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure how it plays with WP rules, but DCNS is a significant player. If it presents a project at an international conference, it becomes "ipso facto" notable. Moreover most if not all the Russian references discuss the project in some or great (e.g. [19]) detail. There are also articles in other languages (French; [20],[21]), Italian, but indeed, the concept appears to have caught Russian fancy. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/10710-smx-25-petit-dernier/ and http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=11460.0;wap --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thank other editors for supplying more references. However, I would ask them to review Wikipedia:Notability (events). There have been many experimental vessels that were built to test various novel concepts that were not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, here. All the citations above are about what is little more than a publicity campaign for a concept that was never even built! Its two claims to notability are novelty and the fact that it received mention in the specialty press for a brief period in 2010. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and Notability is not temporary. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Unfortunately, most of the examples don't fit the definition of
  reliable sources in Wikipedia. Many are blogs. Some are written apparently by a DCNS company representative. So, in effect, it's an echo chamber from a publicity campaign that we see above. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Что стоит за этим громкогласным заявлением? Речь идет и в самом деле об удивительном симбиозе надводного корабля и подводной лодки, которому авторы идеи дали пока лишь условное обозначение SMX-25 и продемонстрировалии проект на военно-морской выставке "Евронаваль-2010" And beyond. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - longstanding consensus is to keep articles on ships only after construction has begun, based on the principle of
talk) 15:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Nautilus (Verne) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Note that the
    Nautilus (Verne) article does not cite any reliable sources that support its notability either—one source is about a submarine built by Robert Fulton and the other is a "notice" in a museum—and is probably another example of an article that should be deleted. User:HopsonRoad 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Vyacheslav, that is not exactly a rebuttal of my point. That Nautilus is a fictional ship. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect relevant, verifiable data into DCNS. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And the meaning? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources from Vyacheslav84:
- https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=eczx0ZixNLEC&pg=PA70&dq=%22SMX-25%22+-mg&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22SMX-25%22%20-mg&f=false --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ныряющий фрегат Французские конструкторы предложили экзотический проект корабля будущего from Vzglyad (newspaper) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Французы показали ныряющий фрегат from Ежемесячный журнал «Национальная оборона», издающийся с апреля 2006 года – респектабельное и авторитетное издание, посвященное широкому спектру вопросов, связанных с обеспечением национальной безопасности России. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for supplying these,
    DCNS (company). They appear to refer to a concept introduced at a conference, but never built. So, the precedence cited by Parsecboy and the suggestion to add mention of the concept at DCNS (company) as a redirect from here are appropriate. A redirect means that, if you type in "SMX-25", you arrive at "DCNS (company)", perhaps at the section on "Submarines and underwater weapons". Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete, per prior standing consensus; no construction has begun;
WP:CRYSTAL applies. Kierzek (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This link has nothing to do with the article at all. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, Vyacheslav. This vessel has not been built, and there's no indication that it will be built. If the French Navy (or anybody else) actually orders a vessel built to the SMX-25 design, and the work actually starts, then it will merit having an article. But those possibilities are in the future, which is where WP:CRYSTAL applies. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the draft of the vessel that exists (the project itself). --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but until somebody cuts steel to build it, Wikipedia will not be concerned about it, since shipbuilders create these kinds of drafts all the time and they usually come to nothing. Unless the design is otherwise notable (and it has not been demonstrated that it is), then we don't need an article on it.

In addition, it seems rather telling that DCNS seems to have abandoned the project, given that their website returns 0 hits. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made a brief entry on this topic at
DCNS (company)#Submarines and underwater weapons, which would allow a redirect to that article. User:HopsonRoad 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Good idea! 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
DCNS (company)#Submarines and underwater weapons. I came in nominating deletion, but this solution works for me. User:HopsonRoad 13:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data Networking/Spring 2017/

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

This doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article at all; I think it's a course outline for a course that's taking place this spring. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The title containing "Spring 2917" and the content of the material make it clear they are using Wikipedia as a web hosting service. So that is why I am saying "speedy delete".Knox490 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tagged for speedy - wikipedia is not a hosting service. Completely non-notable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately U5 (Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) only applies to userspace, and A7 has been declined, so speedy deletion is not an option. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity. I think that's the intended location, as similar articles exist there, such as this. Adam9007 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is
chatter) 01:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Weston

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

Essentially, unsourced BLP, the main text is half a line. Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not found any reliable sources that obviously fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources and depth of coverage. It is a stub article which is very uninformative. Knox490 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have two sources by her, and IMDb which is not reliable, no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per

WP:CV101. In this case, the material from the website at issue appears to be derived from the Wikipedia article, and not the other way around. (non-admin closure) /wiae /tlk 22:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Gertrude of Nivelles

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

Some of old revisions are violating copyrights. The original page is [22], and the revisions violating copyrights are 01:47, 13 December 2012(UTC) through 13:02, 17 March 2014(UTC), where the "After the death Pippin" through "forced marriage." part is copy and pasted. Also 13:59, 17 March 2014‎(UTC) through 08:37, 17 June 2014(UTC) is copy and pasted "and first made contact with the Irish monks led by Foillan" section. I hope someone could double check the changes. 遡雨祈胡 (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The subject of the page is clearly notable. This isn't the right venue for addressing
WP:COPYVIO. Anyway, the alleged source of the copyright material says that it copied from Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested (and endorsed by page creator); see

WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Mark Oliver

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

Seems to be a voice actor who has dubbed parts (of unknown importance) in quite a few anime series into the English language. However, the article is only cited to an anime website, even IMDb only has a single line about him. In addition, an editor claiming to be the subject is regularly 'correcting' information and, considering we have no proof either way about any of his personal details, we don't have sufficient material for

WP:GNG. Time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I was the one who started this article, I concur that a deletion is in order due to the reasons given by Slink. This article was one of many spur-of-the-moment creations of mine when I joined Wiki back in 2006.Shaneymike (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team-DkS

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

A PROD in the article stated that "Having notable sponsors indicates that this team might be notable but there is no coverage in reliable sources I can find. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:GNG". I removed the PROD tag on the grounds that the article was previously nominated for deletion (and subsequently speedily deleted as a copyvio). However, I agree with the nominator's sentiments that the team does not appear to be a notable e-sports team, as my search also failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. While it was argued that having a notable sponsor is a claim of significance,

csdnew 09:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 09:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 09:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 09:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 09:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete' as non-notable sports team or franchise. Filled with external links violating
WP:NOTLINKFARM. Possibly could even be speedily deleted under A7. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Ajf773: A7 was declined. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, although an unsatisfying reason for declining. Ajf773 (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my initial CSD tag. Thanks for the ping! Yashovardhan (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per
WP:G4 - I remember the first article and there's been no improvement. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)De[reply
]

Delete. After searching in both normal google and the video game-related google search, I was unable to come across anything that could indicate notability. An admin would have to take a look to see if G4 would be applicable (SoWhy?). Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not since it has never been deleted in a normal AfD. The first AfD closed as speedy delete, i. e. without allowing discussion to happen. That's why I had PRODed it originally, considering that no formal previous discussion had occurred. I decided against A7 speedy deletion since the article previously included claims that they are sponsored by
  Discord (software) and are thus at least more significant than most other teams who have no corporate sponsors. Regards So Why 15:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOMER

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article consists nearly only of a definition. Little more information could be added. Olidog (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The entry in WorldWideWords (as cited in this article) tells us that there is little reliable information about this word. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

delete yep, WP is not a dictionary. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if Wikipedia were a dictionary, it is an obscure word that would not be found in a dictionary. Knox490 (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I am not changing my opinion, but I have seen that there are very many links to this article, as well as an entry in Wiktionary. Something should be done about them. TomS TDotO (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the links don't appear to be in the Main namespace. I think all the ones that are are the pop culture references mentioned in this article. PriceDL (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this is a
definition could be expanded. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: this should be and is dealt with on Wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriceDL (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavin Turakhia

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

No grounds asserted for notability meeting

WP:BIO. Turakhia's article was previously deleted two times - ref (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhavin_Turakhia / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhavin_Turakhia_(2nd_nomination). The activity done with this article looks like a paid article of a person, who has done lots of PR online, but didn't received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good business person from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability clearly asserted in text and supported by ample sources. A quick source check shows several more google news sources. Article does perhaps need NPOVing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since when the article was last deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert:, Please check the history of User:Vinay089, who nominated this article of AFD. The way of editing is really suspicious. Also go through the article Bhavin Turakhia and the references cited. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is well cited with reliable sources. It has received significant media coverage in mainstream media houses including
BIO
. Apart from this, His company, achievement, awards are enough to make the subject notable for inclusion to Wikipedia.

ATTENTION: I just checked the history of user User:Vinay089, who merely have any positive contribution to Wikipedia. This account seems to be sock, and created solely with purpose of deleting notable articles. (The account Vinay089 is under sockpupet investigation, Here) He nominates the article for deletion even without informing the creator of page (He doesn't leave notification on talk page). The user merely aware about Wikipedia's policy. Despite of being notable, he nominated article Bhavin Turakhia repeatedly for deletion. One more important thing which should be consider, he nominates the article and copy paste same reason in every in each and every AFD. You may check the list of article he nominated and the given reason.

See one of his comment when one of user contacted him and how he responded, "Thanks for reaching out, as per my suggestion you must quit writing about Turakhia brothers. Otherwise there are high chances of block on your account by Administrators. Because as per the decision of many Wikipedia members & especially Administrators there article is not notable and is Delete. Being an Indian as per my experiences with the Wikipedia is that, here mostly foreign entrepreneurs are valued more than Indian businesspeople."

It shows he hardly knows Wikipedia policy and just nominating the article for deletion, vandalizing and violating the Wikipedia policy. Also See his global contribution here. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Elton-Rodrigues, Thanks for mentioning me, I'm a Wikipedia user/editor as any other. If I see any article that is not notable and should not be up (within specific category), then I had/have/will nominate that for investigation as it comes under my rights. I guess you're new here because the article gets deleted/removed by decision of multiple editors. So find some more information about Wikipedia. Just fyi, sock has happened because I was trying to create a new article which was already created, not for adding delete nominations. May I know why it's hurting you so much? Are you an paid editor? Vinay089 (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinay089: Please be rational in debate. Neither I am hurt (why would?) nor paid. I am well informed about Wikipedia and WP policy. I believe, you need to be informed, seriously. You should know that Wikipedia does not make any discrimination to anyone weither anyone is Indian or foreigner. Your comment was ridiculous and illogical. Wikipedia encourages and welcomes everyone to edit.

You are non active user. You only come online to delete the article. You have hardly any positive contribution to Wikipedia. Your account and activities is quite suspicious and shows that It is created for deletion purposes only. You nominate the article for deletion without informing to the creator and copy-paste the same reason in every AFD, it violates the

COI), en non notable entrepreneur whose article has been deleted multiple times, since long you advocating Chawla but nothing worked out. Your activities also are similar to the banned/blocked shockpuppet accounts/users who created Ayan Chawla's article. i think, this issue need to be raised in Wikipedia's community portal.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

@Elton-Rodrigues, Again thank you for writing such a big note. I'm here to edit few articles like you and you have also done about 150 edits total like me. So, why are you trying to attack? Try to understand, whenever any user open delete discussion it's up-to the community to delete or not. This article was deleted two times earlier but this time it looks that it will sustain because many users think to Keep. Why are you making this an issue? Just for your curiosity unfortunately I'm not connected to any of the people on Wikipedia or the people/organisation I'm editing/writing about. I wish I had any connection to Mukesh Ambani or Bhavin Turakhia, can you please refer me? :) FYI: I'm in touch with an editor now who had deleted the Ayaan Chawla's article and now he's helping me to solve the basic issues with it. I agree that I had made that discrimination comment, so what? That was my opinion, did I said that to you? WHY ARE YOU CONCERNED TO THINGS WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO YOU OR EFFECTING COMMUNITY? Vinay089 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinay089 Please be rational in debate. I am not attacking you. I am putting my points. Please understand that I don't have problem you have nominated this article for deletion. You are vandalizing and violating the Wikipedia's policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I found your activities suspicious and I am making people aware of it. If you are not guilty, Please you no need to afraid. Let the sock-puppet investigation finish.

I am concerned to thing I am not related because I am concerned abut WIKIPEDIA. And Yes, It is affecting community. You shouldn't/can't spread wrong information about Wikipedia. Better if you should make yourself well-informed about WP and its policy. Otherwise you end up violating the policies, just like you are doing since long. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elton-Rodrigues: Let me tell you the truth, what you're trying to do is Wikipedia stocking which is against the policy. The other article ZNetLive (company) which I have raised for Wikipedia deletion and you tried to stock me over there as well with same comment, over there three other primary editors feel that the article should be deleted. So what are you trying to proof? I'm not interested for any further communication with you, as you're undecided/unaware. Vinay089 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (ATTENTION / GENERAL) The sockpupet investigation over my account (User:Vinay089) has been closed successfully and considered as COIN (Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) rather than as an SPI case. I apologize for being off-topic by putting this comment. Vinay089 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per WP:GNG. Well cites with relisble sources. That this article was put up for deletion again is just pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's in practice a presumption that billionaires are notable. (we may have to raise this cut-off some day, the way the world is going, but it seems still to be reasonable). The present article does not seem promotional . DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As DGG points out, people who are Rich as Croesus are notable. Plus there are sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle and Crops

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Unreleased game that is not subject to significant coverage from reliable independents sources yet. The1337gamer (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but be open to restoring because they just launched a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign which appears to be going well so far.[23]Knox490 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may well be something notable about this game in the future, but at the moment it is primarily an advertisement for the game's proposed features. Clawsyclaw (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but update when news/info available. As the game is still being developed and soon will be released in Early Access [24] This page will be updated with all the news/information needed to keep the page up and running. All the information will be added from Cattle And Crops. [25] Joe Parkinson (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reasoning for keeping the article. You haven't addressed the point I raised: the topic lacks notability. We don't create Wikipedia articles on any game simply because it exists. The game has almost no coverage from reliable independent sources at moment. The developer's own website does not establish notability, it's a primary source. There's no guarantee the article will receive enough coverage to meet

too soon for an article. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

I understand your point the game will be soon released in Early Access. It already has some coverage from other websites and sources. [26] And I'm very certain when the game soon is released as Early Access there will be more coverage of the game [27]. The other communities have already taken an interest with the game [28] and the farming community out there already have hered about the game just needs to be released. [29] Joe Parkinson (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage on internet forums is irrelevant and has no bearing on the topic's notability. I read the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article before nominating for deletion. Cattle and Crops isn't the primary focus of the article and the section on it is short. There's not enough there to establish notability. If the topic receives significant coverage from reliable independent sources, then an article can be created. Not before, with the hope that some day coverage might appear. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And the page here is short due to the limited information about the game expect their website with tons of information. Like I said hopefully soon when the game is released in Early Access it can be recreated when it has more notability and independent sources for the game. So if you do, you can delete the article. Hopefully soon we'll be given more information and more notability for the game. Joe Parkinson (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The developers are a small German team. There're some notable German sites out there with reviews/opinions and details about the game as well as there're ones in French also. The game is soon to be released and maybe it was to soon to create the article. So maybe delete the article can be a good idea, but as stated above to be recreated/restored in the future. The potential of the game and possible increase in notability and more review sites. The crowdfunding it still going strong too. [30] Hjc01 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. SPA vote doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the motives of the article's creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the meet
WP:GNG, a forum website is not a reliable source. The article lacks third-party and independent sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources do not presently exist for this video game, meaning it's not notable now. If there's a reasonable belief that it will be notable, it should be moved to draft space. If there is no such reasonable belief, it should be deleted. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Hjc01 is a Confirmed sock puppet of Joe Parkinson. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joe Parkinson.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps just a case of
WP:TOOSOON at this point, but I don't see any significant reliable, independent sources on the subject currently. Also striking through the blocked users' comments. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (

talk) 12:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Heather Gross

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

Fails

WP:NBIO. Non-notable person. Not subject to significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The1337gamer (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence that this person meets notability guidelines for artists. Clawsyclaw (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Oxenfree#Development. I can't find any sources, so ~~I think redirecting to the game she helped work on would be the best idea.~~ Otherwise, delete. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure redirecting to the Oxenfree is particularly useful. The article has one short sentence on her. In the future, if she becomes known for working on other projects, then a redirect to one of them over another wouldn't be helpful. I considered redirecting to the studio she works for (Night School Studio), which I think would be a better target but that article doesn't mention her outside the infobox. So I think deletion would be better. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've changed my !vote to delete. Guess we'll have to wait until she's done more work before an article at all is viable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the person who wrote the article, I agree. While her work on the art for Oxenfree certainly is notable there isn't enough notable information and sources to make an article, believe me, I looked for them. I will keep what I wrote here in my sandbox as a draft, add information when more is available, and recreate it once there are enough secondary sources and content. FlagFlayer 00:04, 16 April 2017 (U:TC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I've placed a {{db-author}} tag on the article, which may speed things along.
talk) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watan TV

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

Tommy Syahputra (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominated for speedy deletion as only content is rephrasing of page title. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no content to this article and no indication of how the topic is notable. -- Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete
missfortune 08:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Agreement that this research has not received sufficient coverage to be considered notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AsdA small RNA

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

Fails

WP:GNG no secondary sources about topic - only primary research papers. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

Leaning delete There's a certain amount of mention of "asdA" in the literature [31] but I have a hard time finding out whether that's qualitatively different from "AsdA". Most of those papers also date from earlier than the one cited in the article, which would imply different meanings. (To be fair, that article does have 6 cites itself) Overall, looks like a novel coinage that has not yet been taken up and/or discussed widely, thus probably premature. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

asdA genes are not the same as AsdA small RNA ( the name comes from antisense RNA of dnaA). This article is a part of Rfam ( non-coding RNA database) summary page and an RNA family has been created. If you think there is something wrong with the data published by Dadzie et al 2013, please let me know. I added comment to this article with a link to Uniprot page. Joanna Argasinska (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with the data per se. The issue is that I have is that the data has not received coverage in secondary sources. If there is no secondary source coverage, the topic does not meet the

WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 07:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

I added an Rfam infobox to make it clear that this is part of the Rfam database. Antonipetrov 11:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I suppose that might put the stub sufficiently in context, but I'm not sure. Biochem people? In any case, the added external link was a misfire - consisting only of data from the already referenced single primary source and, slightly humourously, a mirror of the Wikipedia article including AfD notice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find too much enthusiasm one way or the other. Looking at the original paper's PubMed entry, we find this study, the only reference in the AfDed article, cited just three times. Looking at those, two do not mention this RNA at all, referring to more general findings of the paper. The third simply states: "To date, two antisense RNAs related to bacterial cell cycle genes have been identified: . . . . while asdnaA is expressed in stationary phase and under other stress conditions and seems to increase stability of the dnaA mRNA by an unknown mechanism." [32] [Note: asdnaA is presumably their attempt to avoid the confusion over the name given by the discoverers, but I find no evidence this alternative was ever used by anyone else]. Google Scholar has three additional cites. Two are later papers from the same research group, so not independent. The last, though, [33] is independent and gives AsdA a one-paragraph summary. It could be argued that there hasn't been much time for a 2013 finding to make its way into reviews, but that is sort of the point. Is a paragraph in a single review enough? Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for so brilliantly summing up, and providing the depth of info

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The s on the end implies that more than 1 source providing sigcov is needed. So far I can only see sigcov in one source, and even thats disputable. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandradhoja Paramahansa Dev

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines albeit

Talk 07:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) delete as there is no evidence that this astrologer/spiritual guru passes
WP:RS) to the article. I also think that the author of this article has some misunderstandings about the right terminology that should be used to describe the subject, e.g., he dabbled in pseudoscience like astrology, and not actual sciences like astrophysics and cosmology. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choti si ghana fermi

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

Fails

WP:GNG. No (independent) sources whatsoever. Kleuske (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Philippine Basketball Association. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Philippine Basketball Association

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

Per

missfortune 06:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now without prejudice against recreation - The PBA has indeed suggested the formation of a women's basketball league in the Philippines, and plans to establish it in the near future. However, as far as I know, these plans are just plans and so far there is no concrete information about it yet (even the "WPBA" name isn't official yet to my knowledge). At best, maybe there could be a mention at the main
csdnew 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge for now unless additional references become available. Content could be merged with Philippine Basketball Association with a separate article re-created and expanded once league launches. Hmlarson (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as a commenter has located a stronger notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heiko Maile

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

reliable source coverage in media is supporting the claim. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added the credible claim of significance to the article now (i.e. winning the Deutscher Fernsehpreis in 2017) and per Bearcat, I agree that the subject has notability which simply had not been cited earlier. TopCipher (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a stronger notability claim than anything that the article contained at the time of nomination. I'm withdrawing this accordingly, although the article does still need other referencing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

The Alano Club

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

Non-notable organisation. Only references to it in

^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 14:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 14:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Comment This is actually a collection of clubs under the same name, mostly in the US but also Canada and Cuba. See [35]. Individual Alano clubs seem to get mild RS coverage (noticeable from several pages of results).
Talk • Work 16:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

XTRMST (album)

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

Non notable fails

WP:NALBUMS MassiveYR ♠ 10:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to XTRMST. There is some coverage ([36], [37], [38]), but not so much that it cannot be adequately covered in the article on the band. --Michig (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per independent coverage mentioned above and the album itself has charted on several Heatseekers charts in the United States. Carbrera (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotaru Hazuki filmography

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

Indiscriminate collection of non notable titles; please also see:

Comprehensive compilations of adult filmographies are discouraged, per the project guidance. The article has been de-PRODed with the suggestion to merge content into the main article. However, this is unnecessary as the few blue-linked entries are already mentioned in the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 04:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not IMDB. Pburka (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael M. Berger

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

Was a contested A7 over a month ago. Still no improvement. An accomplished attorney, however, other than

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not sufficiently notable, should be redirected to

WP:HEY save might be possible. In fact, he might get across the mark on cited writings. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 10:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he appears to pass my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Broad consensus that coverage of the company is not deep or extensive enough to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rue La La

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

Company is only marginally notable, if that. Current article is badly sourced and unsourced - refs are press releases, blurbs about funding or other events where it is mentioned in passing, the company website itself, and directories. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is part of a student assignment so if the consensus here is to delete, I would like to request that the article be sent back to the student's userspace so it can be further worked on and so the teacher can grade their work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is that normal in Wiki Ed? Because it certainly sounds like a violation of

WP:NOTWEBHOST to me. St Anselm (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Not if the student is going to work on the page - if they weren't, then I'd be less inclined to ask for it to be moved. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that these sources that are currently cited are sufficiently independent of the company that they do establish
WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- the promotionalism outweighs any marginal notability the subject may or may not have. The sources above are not convincing for notability -- they are either trade press, or local to the business, such as "A look at Rue La La's Cool Office" or "Rue La La is Looking for Funding". Neither types meets
WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This just reads like an advertorial to me. This company doesn't seem notable enough for its own page, and there are no controversies etc. that would make the page more important, useful, or balanced. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I read the "article" Rue La La And NBC's "Access Hollywood" Ink Partnership in The Street, I was completely in the KEEP camp. But then I noticed that the "article" was not an article at all, I was a PR Newwire press release that looked like an article. The more convincing case for KEEP is the Yahoo article and the two articles[48][49] which are Boston Globe related. For the most part, I don't buy the argument that the article reads like an advertisement/PR piece. but footnote #15 (which is "Rue La La Announces International E-Commerce Capabilities". PRNewswire. PRNewswire) needs to be given the heave-ho. The problem with the content related to footnote 15 is it is based on something the company is developing and not something it has actually implemented. And to make matters worse, it is a fairly complex project that could easily get delayed repeatedly.Knox490 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yahoo.com and boston.com articles are alo essentially press releases, which allow him to say what he wants, and to celebrate his work. They don't read as journalism. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on sources in article , comments above and a proquest search on "Rue La La". of the 50 hits on the first page of that search, all but 2 were press releases. The 2 exceptions were the Boston Globe stories mentioned above. In this case, the Globe is local coverage, but even if it were not, 2 stories would not suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad (film)

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

Just-created stub about a 14-year-old nothing of a film. Although not cited as a review, read the one reference. Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'Just created', 'stub', and not being a very good film are all irrelevant with respect to notability. The fact is, this film received sufficient coverage to establish notability. Rotten Tomatoes lists reviews from The Hollywood Reporter, LA Weekly, and the Los Angeles Times among others ([50]). Tom Pollard's book Loving Vampires: Our Undead Obsession includes a fair amount of coverage ([51]), and there's coverage in several other books ([52], [53], [54], [55]). There was also a legal case relating to the film ([56]). --Michig (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A 14 year old something of a film per significant coverage in reliable sources. Please follow
WP:BEFORE, especially if the article was just created. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaukat Mahmood Basra

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

New, unreviewed, creation by a now-blocked spammer Macrolancer (talk · contribs) / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal who is churning out biogs in what's an obvious paid editing scheme. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley, I accepting I made some citation which is not suitable to Wikipedia. Get punished for 72 hours and learned a lot to never use such sites as the citation in Wikipedia. Will not do that again. There is no issue with this article. You can check the notability and verify references. Macrolancer (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about citations, it's about your use of multiple

WP:SOCKPUPPET accounts. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Hi

WP:SOCKPUPPET? Macrolancer (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep and flag for a neutrality check.
WP:NPOL on that basis, that's the situation we have here. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been an elected member of the Parliament so meets basic notability, however few sources cited are unreliable. --Saqib (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable Member of Provincial Assembly passes
WP:POLITICIAN. Passable stub in its current state. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AngryPicnic

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

An unremarkable YouTube personality; the subject lacks sources that discuss it directly and in detail. The article is largely self-cited, sourced to YouTube and / or other unsuitable sources such as PublicPrank & tabloid-like coverage.

Appears to be part of a recent series of creations on similarly non-notable YouTubers, which are listed in each other's articles as "associated acts". Several (ThatWasEpic, Justin Stuart & Andrew Scites) from the same contributor were recently deleted at AfD:

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know these series of deletion are started by
Hawkeye75 at the same timeframe and only they're applied to articles about YouTubers who are on Knowledge graph, I made these articles months early and they were pattrolled by someone else, so if they weren't marked for speedy deletion at the time of creation, this is a conspiracy to stop YouTubers making money, while there is also a huge wave of unmonetizing videos of these YouTuber, this somehow is related to Google. While the articles were made using an amount of refrences I have no idea how Wikipedians dare to lie they didn't find "any" news articles about the person. Also I have notices changes on Knowledge graph at the time these AfD were made and Google somehow broke their own privacy by letting some Wikipedian here access my personal info such as letting them read emails. Don't expect me zip my mouth and sit and not talk about it. BTW I don't make money from writing articles for these people, not like other YouTubers and celebrities who have special users to update their articles. I'm not from America and I don't live in America, don't accuse me publicly and this is increadiable how Wikipedia admins don't even make a comment about them. I made articles about YouTubers who I've been whatching their videos for some years now and thought they can have articles to help inspire their works. Mjbmr (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -- no, not part of a conspiracy to stop YouTubers making money. If such concerns exist, please take them to
WP:ANI. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing indicating any notability or significance. I see that the creator of this page has created dozens of similar articles of below-acceptable notability. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to At the Drive-In. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¡Alfaro Vive, Carajo! (EP)

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

(Serious nomination) Recently created. Fails

WP:NALBUMS. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No references at all. This needs to redirect to the artist page. Anon IPs have been reinstating the article without any edit summaries. Karst (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to At the Drive-In. As it stands, article makes no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to At the Drive-In; not independently notable. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to At the Drive-In per above. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur that there is nothing to merge here. A redirect leaves future options open. MartinJones (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see

WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Trivikraman

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

No references and no

film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Comment - This stub can be brought up to standards in seven days to satisfy film notability guidelines or deleted. Just tagging it as needing improvement isn't enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CAPITOL STANDARD (Magazine)

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

I find no substantial coverage of this magazine, at least not online. At most, it's mentioned as the company founded by Ursula Lauriston in articles that cover her, and it's mentioned on websites citing those websites' mention in the magazine. Fails

notability. Largoplazo (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with nom. Insufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability. MB 22:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hinsdale Central High School. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinsdale Central Athletics

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

Unneeded content fork created without any discussion ~~subject~~. No indication of any notability whatsoever. John from Idegon (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Hinsdale Central High School I concur that there is no independent notability for this topic. The material should be merged / redirected to Hinsdale Central High School, the source of this content fork. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Allen Kotler

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

Does not appear to meet

independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV; no indications of notability or significance. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom First Party

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

Non-notable political party: contested one election, only two newspaper articles ever even mention it in passing, won no seats, and the only reason there is as much there as there is is because I found the electoral commission's details of party officers from 2012. Minor party coverage is important in making sense of PNG politics, but there's no point in having coverage when they're this much of a nonentity. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of political parties in Papua New Guinea. Not notable on its own, but having candidates on the ballot I think makes them notable enough for a section within that article, maybe a subsection within a "minor parties" section. South Nashua (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't the content for it, and PNG has had tons of these never-had-any-coverage-in-reliable-sources-but-had-a-ballot-line parties in its history. Merging would make List of political parties in Papua New Guinea utterly unwieldy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's already a large list, but a sentence or two isn't going to hurt anything if the party was on the ballot. South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Registered political party which contested an election. This is the sort of material which should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I'm in favor of keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections on general informational purposes. Want a policy citation: WP:IAR — Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No conspiracy here, sorry. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AverageBroTV

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

An unremarkable YouTube personality; significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found. Article sourced to tabloid-like coverage of pranks by the subject.

Appears to be part of a recent series of creations on similarly nn Youtubers; see for example, ThatWasEpic, Justin Stuart & Andrew Scites from the same contributor, which were recently deleted at AfD:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know these series of deletion are started by
Hawkeye75 at the same timeframe and only they're applied to articles about YouTubers who are on Knowledge graph, I made these articles months early and they were pattrolled by someone else, so if they weren't marked for speedy deletion at the time of creation, this is a conspiracy to stop YouTubers making money, while there is also a huge wave of unmonetizing videos of these YouTuber, this somehow is related to Google. While the articles were made using an amount of refrences I have no idea how Wikipedians dare to lie they didn't find "any" news articles about the person. Also I have notices changes on Knowledge graph at the time these AfD were made and Google somehow broke their own privacy by letting some Wikipedian here access my personal info such as letting them read emails. Don't expect me zip my mouth and sit and not talk about it. BTW I don't make money from writing articles for these people, not like other YouTubers and celebrities who have special users to update their articles. I'm not from America and I don't live in America, don't accuse me publicly and this is increadiable how Wikipedia admins don't even make a comment about them. I made articles about YouTubers who I've been whatching their videos for some years now and thought they can have articles to help inspire their works. Mjbmr (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia isn't here to help youtube channel creators earn money. Jeez. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not show the depth of reliable source coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Flentzeris

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

An unremarkable YouTube personality; significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found.

Appears to be part of a recent series of creations on similarly nn Youtubers; see for example, ThatWasEpic, Justin Stuart & Andrew Scites from the same contributor, which were recently deleted at AfD:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know these series of deletion are started by
Hawkeye75 at the same timeframe and only they're applied to articles about YouTubers who are on Knowledge graph, I made these articles months early and they were pattrolled by someone else, so if they weren't marked for speedy deletion at the time of creation, this is a conspiracy to stop YouTubers making money, while there is also a huge wave of unmonetizing videos of these YouTuber, this somehow is related to Google. While the articles were made using an amount of refrences I have no idea how Wikipedians dare to lie they didn't find "any" news articles about the person. Also I have notices changes on Knowledge graph at the time these AfD were made and Google somehow broke their own privacy by letting some Wikipedian here access my personal info such as letting them read emails. Don't expect me zip my mouth and sit and not talk about it. BTW I don't make money from writing articles for these people, not like other YouTubers and celebrities who have special users to update their articles. Don't accuse me publicly and this is increadiable how Wikipedia admins don't even make a comment about them. I made articles about YouTubers who I've been whatching their videos for some years now and thought they can have articles to help inspire their works. Mjbmr (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give us more info/proof on YouTubers who pay special users to update their pages that would be great.

(talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete per
WP:PAID) Exemplo347 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for ever so many reasons, in particular
WP:NOADS -- WP is not a promotional vehicle for non-notable individuals. Montanabw^(talk) 08:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Montanabw....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No decent coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine

AfDs for this article:

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

No outside sources. It was kept in the past, despite this, because it is technically a school that exists. But there's still no secondary sources three years latter. Karlpoppery (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 03:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 03:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 03:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and these "it exists so we should have an article on it" arguments are terrible. Fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. This is a contemporary school in a Canada. That we can't find sources on-line is strong evidence that such sources don't exist, and that the school is therefore not notable. Pburka (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pburka. If we can't find the sources to demonstrate notability for a school in Canada, it is highly unlikely that the sources exist at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat Selvamanickam

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

Non-notable person. The article relies on one reference which is primary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

Weak keep. GS h-index of around 17 is a liitle on the low side for this average-cited field. The nomination could be made more explicit. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. He is a reputed scientist and the Director of Texas Center for Superconductivity at University of Houston. --Tigerson1995 (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mackie

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

Promotional and of doubtful notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At present he meets the notability of

WP:CURLING, but the policies are set to change (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposed_new_guideline), and he would no longer meet them, as far as I can tell. The World Curling Tour site isn't working properly right now, so I can't look up to see if he has won any events, but none are mentioned in the article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk, contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. Even if a person does nominally meet a notability criterion in NCURLING, their includability is still conditional on the article's
WP:GNG, but this version just can't stand. Regardless of whether he has a valid notability claim or not, it's the claim's sourceability that determines his includability or lack thereof, not the mere existence of an unsourced claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibel notability, poor article, and new guidelines. I would expect him to be grandfathered under the new rules, but the article is so bad it can go.

Old articles that fail to meet new standards of quality don't get "grandfathered" as exempt from the new standards — they either get upgraded to the new standards if possible, or deleted if not. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headless fatty

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

Completely non-notable

neologism. Article is sourced almost entirely to bloggers, and if you take those away we're left with two journals, Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society and International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, neither of which seem particularly notable (no WP article on them) or well-regarded by the scientific community. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply