Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep !votes do not address the point that a sentence or two can easily be placed into mission statement and vision statement, explaining the difference, which anyone should feel free to do. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vision vs. Mission Statement

Vision vs. Mission Statement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article creator contested PROD. This article is a comparison and contrast essay of vision and mission statements mostly taken from those two articles. Nothing here that needs an independent article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTESSAY Exemplo347 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Retain I would like to give qualified support for retaining this article. Amongst students of marketing and management, there is a great deal of confusion about the distinction between visions and missions. So, a concise, well-written explanation of the two on a single page would be really beneficial. A vision is a very long term perspective of where a company hopes to be in 10- 25 years. It is very general in its scope and is often quite ambitious. A mission, on the other hand, is a medium term perspective of the company's aspiration, typically for 3- 5 years (although in some sectors 7-10 year missions can be found). Most mission statements contain information about the market to be served, the products to be offered and the unique benefits that the products offer to the market. That is, mission statements are written in a somewhat formulaic manner and should set out achievable goals and objectives, while visions are far more aspirational. The mission statement should provide guidance to internal and external stakeholders as to how corporate resources are to be allocated for the planning period. The current article needs some work in terms of tightening up the distinction. For this reason, I can only offer qualified support for retaining the article. If the article were to be improved, by making the comparisons clearer, it would be far more beneficial. BronHiggs (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, NOTESSAY. Anything worth keeping can be put into mission statement or vision statement. Combining the two here feels like OR given there are only two external references.South Nashua (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would like to give qualified support to the article as well. First of all, User: BronHiggs makes a lot of good points. I would like to add that I have noticed that non-profits tend to use vision statements more frequently than for profit firms. That is probably because non-profits tend to attract people who are fired up about their causes and want to change the world. It seems to me that it would be rather easy to incorporate Bronhiggs suggestions. I suggest contacting the author of the article and asking for the article to be updated using Bronhiggs suggestions. The upgraded article would be a very useful article. Dean Esmay (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not an essay and a sentence contrasting the two can easily be placed in each article. No need for a separate article. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 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 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirella Arroyo

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has no references and the subject is only a "semi professional soccer player". Fatty wawa (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG, no search returns to even show a scrap of notability. L3X1 (distant write) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Prokopova

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

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

This is a biography of a businesswoman in Russia who, as far as I can tell, doesn't have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article has sources consist of: no mentions at all, brief single-paragraph coverage, primary source (interview), or trivial mentions. It's been deleted twice before as

Hello. Why do you doubt the importance of this woman? Very authoritative sources write about Olga Prokopova, she is in the circles of famous people and her person is no less famous. -- Marino Asler (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Marino Asler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@

significant coverage by independent reliable sources? The two you just added to the article give her only a trivial mention. That doesn't count toward notability, and neither do interviews. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Watch-That-Label|MEET OLGA PROKOPOVA – interview, Braccialini, Italian fashion magazines, authoritative Russian fashion magazines - these are authoritative sources, and judging by them you are mistaken about Wikipedia:Notability of this persona Marino Asler (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Marino Asler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did you even read my previous comment? Interviews are

Wikipedia:Primary sources and don't count toward notability. An interview is the subject talking about herself. A magazine being "authoritative" is irrelevant. We need significant coverage that is independent of the subject. An interview isn't independent, and the other sources you have offered don't provide any significant in-depth coverage of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources. Reference #6 appears to be about an entirley different person and makes no mention of Olga Prokopova. SamsaK (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @SamsaK: Incorrectly designed source is reason for editing the article, and not for deletion. Many secondary sources, and in different languages. For example Buro24/7 , Vogue and other Marino Asler (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not convinced that an article 10 lines in lengths constitutes as significant coverage. SamsaK (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @SamsaK: Wikipedia was created so that everyone could contribute to the development of the article. If you value the length of the article, then why do you consider your articles to be more significant? Your statements are too one-sided. You do not think about people who live in the fashion world, just like these people may not be interested in the Kafka museum Marino Asler (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  SamsaK was referring to the short length of the source, not the length of the Wikipedia article. And that's the trouble. No in-depth significant coverage of this person. As explained above, repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anachronist:There are many sources, in different languages.Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marino Asler: Then why haven't you provided any examples of such sources? You haven't yet. Nothing with significant coverage of the person. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The career section reads like an infomercial, subject fails to meet the simplest of
  WP:GNG standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Cllgbksr: Authoritative sources say the opposite.Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the "authoritative sources" don't actually say anything at all. All you have provided are interviews or trivial mentions. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D5:5690:A93D:AC0D:17F8:1EE0 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @2602:306:36D5:5690:A93D:AC0D:17F8:1EE0: If you make such a statement, then prove it. There are no advertising links in the article. The brand Volha Jewelry is known all over the world. Olga Prokopova is the founder of the brand, and a very famous and notability person in the fashion world. Many authoritative publications have written about she.

  Valery Demure - Valerie de Moore from London, known on the international scene as a representative of the jewelry brands of the best in the fashion segment.

  This review Braccialini

  Here's what the Italian brands write

  Many authoritative magazines in Russia also write about Olga. There are many people who are interested in fashion, and for which Olga Prokopova is a notability person. Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Wikipedia:Golden Rule. We need significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Anachronist: No, it's not. I understand what you're talking about. I also say that there are many authoritative sources, in different languages. Here is a list of authoritative printed journals, with pages. Another thing the article needs to be improved. But this is not the reason to delete it. Here a very famous journalist Evelina Khromtchenko writes about Olga Prokopova.Marino Asler (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And I must ask, again, where is the significant coverage? Yes, that list of authoritative publications are good sources, but we need to see more than one of these sources that has given more than trivial mention to Olga Prokopova. The "very famous journalist" you linked merely wrote a paragraph about a piece of jewelry. The article has just one sentence about Olga Prokopova herself. That isn't what we call significant coverage. It's a trivial mention. We have a guideline about notability, being

  notability is not inherited. In Wikipedia's terms, it is common for a person's work to be notable while the person is not. A notable wine label can have a non-notable winemaker. A notable music composition can have a non-notable composer. A notable piece of jewelry can have a non-notable designer. A notable book can have a non-notable author. Again, where is the significant coverage? Being well known doesn't equal being notable by Wikipedia's definition. We need significant coverage in multiple independent sources — coverage about her not about her works or her business. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Why do you not consider print publications? In my strange, that Olga Prokopova is not yet in Wikipedia. She is the owner of a well-known brand, a famous jeweler, an enviable bride, engaged in charity, published in well-known magazines, gave interviews on television, her decorations were recognized by the most famous brands of fashion Marino Asler (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with print publications. The problem is the meaning of

Wikipedia:Primary sources. The coverage of Olga Prokopova does not constitute significant coverage, and therefore she is not notable in a Wikipedia context. Interviews count as primary sources, not independent coverage. And numerous mentions in many publications don't count either. There just doesn't seem to be any in-depth information written about this person. There are mentions, interviews, and write-ups about her products, but not about her. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 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.

St. Andrew's Secondary School, Adikpo

St. Andrew's Secondary School, Adikpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: Secondary schools are typically considered notable if there is content for an article. I think, given how hard it is to find Nigerian sources, that these sources are enough - a reliable source calling the school prestigious, Gabriel Suswam is a notable alumni, and notable Nicholas Akise Ada is an alumni. I found that Ada is notable, but still needs an article. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to
  WP:BEFORE, particularly Step D, which states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". I also question whether searches have been conducted in any of the 500+ Languages of Nigeria. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    talk) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I don't care much for your dismissive attitude towards our most basic of policies. As the nominator it absolutely is up to you to carry out the checks outlined at Step D of
      WP:BEFORE. We are here to build an encyclopedia not delete articles because of demarcation disputes. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @
        talk) 22:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Please take the time to familiarise yourself with
          WP:BEFORE which is written for those nominating articles for deletion and states "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to....B. Carry out these checks...2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)...D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. 1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search" AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • That's all fine and good, but it doesn't say anything about the nominator having to be the one to add references and credible claims of notability to the article that's nominated
            talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Keep per discoveries by earlier editor. Beyond
  WP:BEFORE, the February 2017 RFC, while finding that "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," also found that "references to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD" (my emphasis). "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." This seems to put the responsibility on the AfD nominator to search for both online sources and offline sources prior to nominating. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources found above and GEOBIAS. The equivalent secondary school in North America would be kept. As such, I see no reason to delete this school. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads more like an advert for the school. Lacks references or any real notability of staff or students/alumni.Fatty wawa (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Its. A. School. Which is automatically notable. AfDs are not supposed to be used to bring attention to an article in need of cleanup. If that is what is wanted, it should be listed in the rationale. L3X1 (distant write) 01:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Secondary school, but remove anything that cannot be sourced. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:42, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Faruk Uğurcan

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

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

This article does not demonstrate that Emir Faruk Uğurcan is notable by Wikipedia standards. Its only source is IMDB, which itself does not meet WP standards for being reliable. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per above, and the subject does not appear to have acted in many productions or in any notable roles. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally fails the GNG, cannot find anything except for social media and non RS. L3X1 (distant write) 17:01, 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. Wizardman 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Taylor (second baseman)

Terry Taylor (second baseman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article does not meet the criteria for notability found in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Does not meet
  WP:NCOLLATH. He was a first-team All-American for Baseball America, what appears to be one of only two recognized sources for that year (see 1989 College Baseball All-America Team). Admittedly, college baseball is well below football or basketball, but he was a first-team selection. Obviously would be nice if he were a unanimous selection, but since he made one of only two teams we could say he is a consensus selection, so I would say he meets the standard to presume notability. Considering the fact that they player's prime was 25-30 years ago, I think finding sources will be a challenge. In view of that, I give the presumption its due, presume sources are out there, and say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. College baseball all-americans were intentionally admitted from
  WP:NSPORTS because of their lack of general coverage. Weak professional career.. lack of sourcing that would rise to GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Can you illustrate where that position reached a consensus? Reading the current baseball guideline, it talks about minor league players and major league players, but is silent on American college players.

WP:NGRIDIRON has similar negative language to what WP:NBASE states (addressing professionals only), yet first-team All-Americans have constructively been given the presumption. At worst we have a conflict: WP:NBASE says no to the presumption, WP:COLLATH says yes to the presumption. However, to me its more WP:NBASE is silent while WP:COLLATH says yes. Usually, if one guideline is met, then that is enough (look at Nico Siragusa and Evan Bradds). I would be willing to entertain your position if you can show where there was consensus to intentionally omit baseball All-Americans, but otherwise meeting WP:COLLATH leads for me. RonSigPi (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NCOLLATH does not refer to all-americans specifically.. it's not really an award the way the Golden Spikes Award is. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

To me, the vote is split. Yes, there were more "option 3" than "option 2", but about half those seem to just say "the list is too long." Its not a vote and arguments of that, to me, are nor credible. That being said, some good points were raised on both sides. You are right baseball receives far less that football, but EFL Championship receives far less coverage than the Premier League and the presumption is still valid. College football and basketball receive A LOT of coverage, so its not really a fair comparison. That is why I am comfortable with a first team All-American. A football Honorable Mention is going to likely be more notable than in baseball. Here we have a 1st team guy. I think of it as an award - not a high as the Golden Spikes, but an award none the less (usually you do get some sort of certificate for what its worth). I understand your concern, but I am not seeing enough to go against WP:NCOLLATH. So I stay with weak keep (weak because I do think your side/the delete side make valid enough points that its not a sure fire keep by any means). RonSigPi (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly doesn't meet
  WP:NCOLLATH either. All-American is not a full fledged "award" and the lack of coverage suggests we shouldn't extend notability to automatically cover it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 14 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.

Boris Novikov

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

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Boris Novikov. With no references, it does not meet Wikipedia's expectation that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Eddie Blick (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Novikov People's Artist of Russia. This is the highest acting title in the state. The person is popular. [1]--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He won a People's Artist of Russia award under the title People's Artist of the Russian Federation which is sourced. If this was for someone who won an equivalent award in the United States or the United Kingdom, I'm sure that this would have never made it to AfD. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above. The corresponding article in Russian has more references. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject has notability across former Soviet sphere. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the
  WP:ANYBIO namely "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour" AusLondonder (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for following reasons: 1) Novikov won the People's Artist of Russia. This is the highest acting title Russia as previously noted. 2) Concurr with the WP:GEOBIAS concerns expressed. The individual clearly meets WP:ANYBIO namely "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour" 3) Has won these awards also: Medal "For Valiant Labour in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" and Medal "In Commemoration of the 800th Anniversary of Moscow" Dean Esmay (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Tozyiakova

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

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

This article fails to demonstrate that Olga Tozyiakova meets Wikipedia's notability standards, specifically that she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only reference provided is that of the subject, which does not meet Wikipedia standards. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like a self-advertisement. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources available which satisfy
  WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChemEqual

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

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

Appears to lack notability and independent reliable sources. Please see exchange on Talk:ChemEqual. Tóraí (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam, which was my declined rationale--I just read through it again, and there isn't a neutral, acceptable sentence in the article. Barring that, notability hasn't been established. So, delete. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see the
  notability. If kept, the ChemEqual talk page discussion points to promotional issues which also need to be addressed. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - small,
  reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Marks

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

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not the same person as the previous AfD nomination and deletion. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An appointment as chair of
  WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 in its own right, and I am not seeing the coverage which could satisfy that condition by rising above the routine. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Surrey County Council could be enough to get her into Wikipedia if she could be shown to have satisfied the "who have received significant press coverage" part of
  WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election results themselves. This is not what it takes to make a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:POLITICIAN since this person is not a city mayor or an MP at least. A city councillor is a lower level position as a city can have numerous city councillors. --Artene50 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:53, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reddcoin

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources show that it exists and gets passing mentions as an example of a cryptocurrency, but nothing to show that anyone has written about it in any way that might convey notability. Not only fails

• Comment: I understand that Reddcoin is not a major cryptocurrency but I find it strange that Potcoin, blackcoin, vertcoin which are also small and barely known cryptocurrencies may be on wikipedia and not Reddcoin. I also tried to detail much thoroughly the blockchain process and the cryptocurrency caracteristics than the articles regarding those other cryptocurrencies. And I added the article from "cryptocoinsnews" which is quite a reference website in the cryptocurrencies business to support the fact that there is indeed a public knowledge about this currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcharig (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A
  WP:SPA article on a topic deleted twice previously at AfD. While Google Books shows brief discussions in publications on cryptocurrencies, I am not seeing anything in the sources provided or found through searches to indicate that the previous consensus should be overturned. AllyD (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails GNG just, and the promotional pressure pushes it solid into "not worth the community's effort to maintain" territory. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I quote the article : "But this steady enrichment [12] relies deeply on the stability of the currency, which is not very common for cryptocurrencies, Reddcoin included, whether on the long term[13] or short term[14]" Do you really think that this is "promotional pressure" ? Please give me some feedback about which sentences are qualified as promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcharig (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not sure on time frames for deletion, but taking the points made above and in the prior AfD's I believe this time round the page can be crafted into a valid wiki.Cryptognasher (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (due to a GNG failure) and Salt - 3rd time's a charm. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I find mentions in trade publications, but they are only mentions and the publications not reliable. Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire

List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The topic does not seem notable under the

• The creator of the article
  WP:REDLINKS). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 18:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's interesting because the topic ban seems to cover 'terrible things done to Turks by Greeks,' but not Turkish topics itself.
  talk) 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Given that the nominator is aware of the move request on the talk page... I find this proposed deletion perplexing. The term in question can be written in any number of ways in the Latin alphabet and sources do not agree on how to pluralize it in English. There is an article on the şeyḫülislām in Facts on File's Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. The list should be checked against Esra Yakut's Şeyhülislamlık: yenileşme döneminde devlet ve din (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005), pp. 242–47. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just click the blue link to the article that this is a list about. Its clearly a notable topic. I get the OR concerns, but that just requires looking for the sources, not deleting the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• And I will, as I have so many times with this nominator, point to
  talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. The topic is clearly notable as the supreme religious authority in a major world empire. The transliteration issue is not reasons for deletion. Constantine ✍ 09:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment KAP03, would you consider withdrawing this AfD per the above comments? There is also a move discussion going on (which, for full disclosure, I have relisted but have no real opinion in the outcomes of). In my past experience, RMs rarely get that much comment if they are also at AfD at the same time, and this appears to be on a way to a keep, and the transliteration issues in the title appear to be the larger concern than the notability, which everyone so far is pretty confident exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Well where are the sources to prove the items in the list are notable. Right now it seems like the keep votes are saying that there must be sources (but have not shown any examples) See
  WP:MUSTBESOURCES. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm going to withdraw my !vote as I'm now unsure. It's described as an "honorific title for outstanding scholars of the Islamic sciences," with 131 named during the Ottoman reign, with the shortest tenure being "
    talk) 17:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Items in a list don't have to be individually notable. That's basic.
    As for sources, did you miss the part where I cited them with page numbers? Srnec (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh for sure,
      talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Shawn, 131 over ~500 years amounts to about one every four years (3.8 if you're a stickler). Over half of the
        Prime Ministers of Australia, didn't make it that long. I think the question here is if the office is notable, and if so, whether it makes sense to have a list. To me, the office appears to be notable, and I don't see any reason against having a list. Also, @KAP03:, there are sources. They're at the bottom of the article. In print and/or not in English is not the same as not being in existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • But that is further reading, not actual inline citations which are not the same thing. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • List of Patriarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. I understand that their is a difference in Islam and Christianity about clerical offices, but this is clearly a notable position, and it makes sense to have a list for it like we would for other religious offices, even if the individual holders were not necessarily notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • For what it is worth, I've switched the "external links" to "references", and made the references inline. Also, some editors edit with little distinction between the two, and it is implicit in WP:BEFORE that the sources in external links be searched. I'm not sure if they were found in this case, but I found them on google books without a problem. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My understanding is that the title went to a/the leading cleric of the empire, the Grand Mufti of Constantinople. So most/all of these individuals are likely to be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, if/when sources can be found. In the meantime, a list of redlinks should be fine. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If the nominator is going to be arguing deletion because they're not actual inline citations, then it only reinforces my longstanding feeling that this is someone who should be topic banned from Afd for persistent, ongoing cluelessness.
  talk) 12:21, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randamoozham (upcoming film)

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

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

A big budget movie that has not yet commenced principal photography. Rumors about the movie have been doing the rounds for many years, and

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with deleting as per
  WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 10:56, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kitesurfing locations

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

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

This is looking a lot like a

• Delete or trim per nom. Some countries have many hundreds of locations that meet this list's criteria, which is why it can never be comprehensive. The ones mentioned (and the few refs) tend to be driven by
  WP:PROMOTION. -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is written in a way that it appears to be a travel guide rather than an encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 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.

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

)

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

No indication of character notability. Was a redirect, which was undone, with the following rationales: "The redirected page was already in use" (which makes no sense), and "Articles migration banned in the new look of the page. Cannot redirect to the characters list". Not every fictional character is notable, and this one doesn't pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to
  List of Mortal Kombat characters. She is a relatively minor character in the franchise, and doesn't have enough reliable sources discussing her in any in depth way. Searches just bring up the standard results for a fighting game character: announcements of her appearance in a game, move lists, videos showcasing her attacks, etc. There has been nothing that I've found that actually talks about her much beyond this. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment
  Tanya (Mortal Kombat) but I see it's under discussion here. I have therefore removed the merge-from tag from Talk:Mortal Kombat without prejudice. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge relevant information and redirect per IP editor. Tanya's still a bit too new as a character. She might be one of the more popular ones, but as far as I'm aware, she's one of the few new ones people didn't hate from MK4. For fictional character articles, all notability stems from a section describing the mainstream's reaction to the character's existence, which of course all the classic MK characters have but Tanya currently does not. It could happen, but I don't know that anyone in the gaming press have offered enough commentary on Tanya - say, by ranking her on lists of characters very often - to warrant an article that is not just about her as a character but as a pop culture phenomenon. Everyone knows who Scorpion, Sub-Zero, Kitana, and Mileena are, and that's because people have cared long enough to keep them visible. Tanya might not be hated, she might even have a huge fanbase, but I don't know that she has made an impression the way the others have. Ask anyone who the most iconic characters from this franchise are and I guarantee you Tanya isn't going to be one of them. Ask a random guy on the street, ask a hardcore fan. Maybe she can have that, someday, but I do not believe it is this day. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) _{(Follow my trail)} 05:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back; yep, no sudden increase in notability to justify an article being created now. —
  ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:19, 13 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 Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roko Bujas

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Rusholme

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a single source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 14 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Crouse

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

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

Completely unreferenced and advertorially toned

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No reliable independent sources, fails to meet simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  run of the mill, local broadcaster. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Lalit

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

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

Non-notable director lacking non-trivial or independent support. Has created a minor short- film. The feature film appears to not have started filming - IMDB shows it is in pre-production. A Google search fails to show support for Wikipedia inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've carried out some quick edits to try to improve the readability of the article, but I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the Indian film scene to improve the actual content relating to that area. I think we should wait a month or so to see if any editors with an interest in that area will take up work on this article, before we consider whether to delete it or not. One thing I will note though is that there seems to be ongoing confusion on Wikipedia and possibly elsewhere online between this individual and the murdered social activist Lalit Mehta. Not necessarily notable in itself but I thought I should mention it. I may mention that factoid in a future edit, assuming that the deletion doesn't go through. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the changes you made and see nothing of a substantive nature. What would be the purpose of extending the AfD if the article clearly fails to meet inclusion criteria? If the subject at sometime meets the criteria, it can be recreated. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Resume of non-notable film director. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not establish notability as written. Delete unless expanded before closing the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now a newly created page at Indian four phase which could be included in this AfD. Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Air Peru

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

)

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

See

Oppose airline has received a license and started to sell tickets, it has also been assigned a code and callsign by the International Civil Aviation Authority, a lot more advanced then some proposed airlines. Article needs improvement but no need to delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong keep due to all the reasons stated by

dimelo

) 03, 00, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

• Keep -- per prior outcomes, non-charter airlines are generally kept. This one appears notable: "Viva Air, the country’s first low-cost airline, offers 11 routes of domestic flights within Peru for only S/. 60" (from Gnews: link). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 10 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stardog

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

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

Was tagged for notability over a year and a half ago. Zero improvement since then. Searches do not turn up the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either

• Delete for lack of notability, based on invalid citation. Of the 6 footnotes, 4 point to the company itself and the other two point to a small (1-10 employees according to LinkedIn) private company instead of a valid secondary source. This appears to be an article created to show notability by having a Wikipedia article, because it can't demonstrate such otherwise. -Markeer 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the page to link from Graph_database as most of the software listed there is included in wikipedia. I'm happy to include more content on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhgrove (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of the two third-party sources cited, one is an interview that simply reports the company's claims without verifying them in any way – which makes it hardly different from a republished press release – and the other is a blog post that simply summarises the company's claimed optimisations without verifying them in any way.--greenrd (talk) 09:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BloodRockz

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

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NBAND Spiderone 11:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately they do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia at present. No sources to confirm that they meet the criteria, namely

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Szűts - Nowsky

Eva Szűts - Nowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Current sourcing consists of a non-independent source, and a listing for her book, which does show she's published. However, searches turned up virtually nothing about her. Fails

• Delete a
  ^{velut luna} 13:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability: just a commercial ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon (2017 film)

Dragon (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Filming has not yet begun, per

• Redirect: Film's shooting will begin in May 2017. See. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 14:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - movie has not even started filming yet. And while some may say "but it will start in a month", we've heard that line before. It was to begin shooting in 2016, and keeps getting delayed. Even if it does start shooting "next month", it will still be at least a year before it is released. And that means a year of unsourced edits, rumors, and vandals. Just get rid of it. Kellymoat (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete--Fails
  WP:NFF.The article creator has an habit of creating all these articles on future films--(prob. to feature as an article creator after years when the film has released or it has indeed become notable get converted to an article) and then !votes for an redirect at AfD.Put an end to this!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:46, 11 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.

City Calm Down

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

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

Non-notable band. Fails the notability criteria for bands and musicians. - TheMagnificentist 10:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band meets several of the notability standards stated at

Such as? - TheMagnificentist 11:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*delete fails WP:BAND. No notable awards, notable band members nor notable albums. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• change to keep based on additional sourcing found. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Below is coverage I found.

Young, Kane (25 August 2016), "Calm down, it's fixed", Hobart Mercury

Ross, Annabel (22 January 2016), "Drummer delay led to City limits", The Age

Cahill, Mikey (12 November 2015), "In A Restless House", Courier Mail

Collins, Simon (12 November 2015), "The Calm and the restless", The West Australian

Collins, Simon (5 November 2015), "In A Restless House review", The West Australian

"New single the 'first taste'", The Daily Mercury, 21 November 2013

"Great depth of musical thought shows in song", The Daily Mercury, 8 November 2012

Reviewed by Rolling Stone [2]

They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Their album In a Restless House charted at #25 in Australia. Meets WP:BAND.Boneymau (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I apologize in advance for this lengthy post, but it needs the length to explain my (so far) minority opinion. I have worked in music management and both ends of promotion. I wonder if editors voting “keep” are looking at these references with a similar analytical eye. I checked all the references I could (a few lead to dead links) that were provided in the article and by user
  WP:RUNOFTHEMILL
  variety: announcements of releases, appearances, first person interviews of members talking about the same, local and small time reviews, etc. All the standard stuff any professional band would (and should) have, but lacks evidence of non-promotionally-tinged, third party coverage in any significant number. This kind of coverage reveals a band that has been paying their dues for a while, building a following, gradually inching upward towards their first significant release. But I don’t see signs of having “made it” yet at an encyclopedic important level. For a Melbourne band with a fanbase and a label’s promotional backing to enter the Australian-only chart at #25 is what one would expect, reflective of pre-orders. To fall nearly 50 places a week later once genuine sales are tallied is also normal. To hover in these lower reaches for the next year or so is also typical of a hard working band, generally peaking upward with a particular appearance of some sort (often times a radio or TV interview), but not an encyclopedic worthy achievement. Please note for those unfamiliar with a “hitseeker” or “heatseeker” type chart: they chronicle positions of music not in a noteworthy chart, but rather tracking where it is positioned to making the chart. In other words, the example cited here as being #8” translates to really being 8 positions away, or #108 if one included it among records that comprise the Top 100. Not sure what numbers were are talking here for this Australian chart, could be Top 40 or Top 200; regardless, a “hitseeker” entry is hardly an indicator of an important achievement in record sales; it’s simply valuable knowledge for retail professionals)

Note the review in Rolling Stone: at a glance this had me thinking, “oh..okay..THAT certainly convey’s notability…” until I pursued the link and recognized this is not the esteemed version of Rolling Stone, but rather one of the many licensed international editions, not produced under the editorial stewardship of the mother company. In essence, the content here is the additional “local interest” unique to the market where a particular edition is sold. For notability purposes, it carries a clout similar to being reviewed in one of the other local coverage sources evidenced here. Of course local coverage in itself doesn’t minimize a claim to notability, but—again—everything coming up in these sources simply re-affirms existence rather than notability. If someone can add some genuine “meaty” evidence of notability, I’ll gladly change my ivote. Even if the only thing that can be proved is they are a top band in Melbourne and nothing else. But I’m not seeing any such claim.

The only thing that might indicate importance is an Allmusic profile. But its easy to misread why a band may have a profile. Although an AllMusic listing at one time was a reasonable indicator of importance, that changed a few years back when the company was sold and they turned over their content management to the TiVo/Rovi databse. Now the only criteria for an AllMusic listing is to have produced a product available for retail distribution. AllMusic’s primary purpose is to no longer catalog music acts of distinction; rather, it is to aid a retailer’s marketing efforts. This results in entries for bands that simply released an album: they may otherwise fail to meet every single criteria for wikipedia notably. Considering every other reference to this band is coming up short in the notability argument, I get the feeling that their Allmusic profile is among the beneficiaries of this low standard. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Album charted at #25 in Australia. It doesn't matter if it didn't sell a single copy the following week, they meet
  WP:BAND comfortably because having a charting album is a core qualifier. This is one of a number of recent AFD nominations that seems to be forgetting that AFD is for judging notability based on established policy, not personal criteria that work outside of that, like how far an album fell in the second week. KaisaL (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I won’t ague your points about following policy, which is why this up and coming band will likely have it’s wikipage saved before they’ve truly earned it. I just needed to air some real world knowledge on this topic to hopefully affect change to this policy. As long as I’ve been here I still don’t know where and how these policies are decided. Is there a special place for me to give this input? I’d be grateful for direction if you have it, KaisaL (talk). Are wikipedia policies set by people who have experience or learned knowledge in respective fields? Sometimes it seems not. The notable bands criteria needs a serious re-evaluation. The chart criteria is especially flawed. We once represented a band whose debut album logged in the lower reaches of the old Cashbox magazine charts based on preorders. The album was pulled from release at the 11th hour for legal reasons—yet it still charted! It never came out—never earned a dime, never heard by the public—yet there is was at #one hundred and something. We always laughed about that one. There are more stories I could tell. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the talk page of the specific policy would be a good starting place, but removing chart placings won't get much support, I don't think. I remember you nominated Jorja Smith too which was a strange nomination, I don't know, maybe you just hold musicians to much stricter criteria than the community as a whole. I agree that general press release spam like streams and new video shouldn't count for as much as it should, though. KaisaL (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the response, KaisaL (talk). One thing, though: I believe you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never nominated anyone. I’m not even sure how to do that. My expertise on the ins and outs of wikipedia is limited, and I’m still learning my way around after a couple of years. But as for musicians, you are correct. Check out my brief statement on my user page. I have a special interest because I’ve promoted performers and I recognize how the game is played (or was, since my experience pre-dates the online digital era, though much is still the same.) I am amazed that wikipedia editors often vote keep without realizing how much smoke and mirrors are involved in the game. Regarding charts, an artist’s release can debut on the charts in the 100’s based on sales to a retailer, not a consumer. These are speculative purchases made by retailers based on the kind of sales hype that I used to do. The release can wind up sitting unwanted, never purchased, and eventually returned or "cut out". A flop, in other words. A tell-tale sign is when a chart shows a release in a high position that falls off the chart the next week (or drops about 50 spots, like these guys). It’s a shame wikipedia policy doesn’t understand that nuance of the game. As result, way too many truly unsuccessful, non notable artists are being given encyclopedic importance. It cheapens the integrity of wikipedia, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per duffbeerforme; coverage in reliable sources (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). These (along with the top 25 chart placement) are sufficient in my view to meet
  WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk 01:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes WP:BAND on multiple criteria per duffbeerforme and Gongshow.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep satisfies the requirements of
  WP:BAND. I think that this is on a completely different level to the example cited by ShelbyMarion above. Dan arndt (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. for these reasons: 1) Band has been covered by: The Age, The West Australian, Rolling Stone and the The Daily Mercury 2) The band's album In a Restless House charted at #25 in Australia. I do recognize the concerns though of the person who gave the lengthy objection. Their Twitter following is about 1,800 followers which is not a lot. On the other hand, they do have 17,000 likes on their Facebook page. Google trends shows they did have a previous spike in interest for a period of time, but that has fallen.[9] There are over 60,000 Google search results for the band.[10] Dean Esmay (talk) 00:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown DJs

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

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

Non-notable musicians. The article survived deletion in the first nomination because the editors concluded that two of the sources met the criteria. But now (most of) the sources aren't functioning and the webpages can't be found. The other sources like Myspace aren't reliable. - TheMagnificentist 10:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The two sources wouldn't qualify as significant today. One is Beatroute, which is a regional publication, and the other is FFWD, which is an even smaller regional publication. Even if you say that Beatroute, a publication with a circulation of 10,000, should be giving a band an article, one source isn't enough for a band around since the 1990s. The fact that one of their claims is playing SXSW, a festival for new bands of which many never go anywhere, is also telling. The other bits are a case of
  WP:NOTINHERITED. In short, a regional or local level act with lots of coverage around Calgary (including this recent one) but precious little beyond that. KaisaL (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This has an advertorial slant to it as written, and there's no genuinely strong claim to passing
  WP:NSONGS, is (a) not even reflected in this article apart from a glancing mention of Shad (but not Wax Romeo) in the list of collaborators, and (b) not all that strong an NMUSIC claim even if it were. There's no evidence of substantive coverage outside of their own local media market, and nothing strong enough to grant them a presumption of notability in the absence of substantive coverage outside of their own local media market. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClearSQL for Oracle

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

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

Article doesn't cite any sources except for the vendor's own web site. I have searched for reliable sources independent of the vendor and I cannot find any. SJK (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I had no luck finding significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 9 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.  Sandstein  12:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Rwanda in Exile

Government of Rwanda in Exile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organisation: presumably recognised by no official bodies (as shown by the sources here- self-published press-releases). This is the news resul for "Government of Rwanda in Exile" and this is the result for ["Exiled Government of Rwanda"; a few more hits, but they are mostly regarding the individuals themselves, as individual exiles. Calling them a 'government in exile' is efectively

• Delete--They have typically managed to bypass
  WP:CSD but it will not be prudent to accord them anything more than their their deserved(??) 7 days of WP fame!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

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

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

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

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

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

]

• Merge to
  R from non-neutral}}. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, or if you insist, merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure that the suggestion that the Ishema Party is synonymous with the Rwandan govt in exile isn't misplaced- third party, independent sources rarely support the view, and they appear to have no international recognition. It would, I think, be pushing a
  ^{velut luna} 09:42, 9 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.

Joseph Brosnahan

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

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

This article appears to be part of an elaborate hoax by the creator, using the infobox to state that he was preceded by an Australian official, and listing the individual as an official in a fictional micro-state. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aireon

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

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

makes a communication service used by notable companies. That does not make them notable. The refs are notices &press releases DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakathidam

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

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

Another of the vanity pages about

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably
  WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalavalapalli family

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

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pure original research with no evidence of notability Spiderone 10:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably
  WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 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.

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

)

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

She is just an unnotable reality-television contestant. Grahame (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  WP:ENTERTAINER
  Libby Babet is the trainer/host of The Biggest Loser Australia, replacing well-known fitness expert and TV personality Michelle Bridges. The Biggest Loser is one of Australia's top rating TV shows. There are 98,000 results when searching for "Libby Babet" of which, having checked the first 10 pages, I suspect most if not all are related to this Libby Babet.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]} - Tyrone28 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a contestant, but still not notable. I have not been able to find anything on Babet that is independent and substantial, although this job is made difficult by the enormous amount of marketing fluff that has been generated about and around her, and printed in the TV pages. Would not object to a redirect to
  The Biggest Loser Australia (season 11) as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply
  ]

[1] ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

Tyrone28 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well sure, lets go through these one by one:
  • http://fitness.edu.au/top-16-influencers-of-fitness-and-nutrition/ - Brief mention and not independent (Babet is on the AIF payroll)
  • http://creative.news.com.au/WEB_QLD/BN_Flipbook/latest-issue/#page/8 - Promotional piece for The Biggest Loser. I live in Brisbane and I've never heard of this "Brisbane News" so I'm not sure it's a reliable source either.
  • http://www.morrissey.com.au/portfolio_page/libby-babet/ - no content, not independent
  • https://www.lifestyle.com.au/libbybabet/ - not substantial, looks promotional
  • http://www.wiredforwonder.com/archive/2015/libby-babet-1 - Word for word identical to the marketing fluff in the above link
  • https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/30587463/this-years-top-fitness-fads/#page1 - Babet appears but the segment is not about her

Demonstrating notability isn't about the

quantity of sources, it's about their quality, and I'm just not seeing the quality needed here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply

]

Ok thanks for the feedback, here's some more information:

• http://fitness.edu.au/top-16-influencers-of-fitness-and-nutrition/ - I can confirm Libby has not been and is not on the payroll for AIF which is Australia's largest fitness educator which I thought would qualify it as a significant and reliable source.
• http://creative.news.com.au/WEB_QLD/BN_Flipbook/latest-issue/#page/8 - Brisbane News is owned by News.com.au and has a readership of 100K in Brisbane.
• https://www.lifestyle.com.au/libbybabet/ - Lifestyle is part of Foxtel and Libby is an independent writer for this online channel as she is for numerous online channels such as Yahoo!7, Scoopla, the HIT Network / Austereo and News.com.au. Lifestyle is one of the top ranked sites in Australia receiving around 500K hits per month.
• http://www.wiredforwonder.com/archive/2015/libby-babet-1 - Wired for Wonder is a Commonwealth Bank event that invites speakers of note from around the world. This link shows Libby as one of their speakers.

Here's another link I found:

• http://nationalachieverscongress.com.au/speakers.html?ls= - Libby is speaking alongside Anthony Robbins at a major event in Sydney and Melbourne

I assume printed sources are just as valid as online? For example, how can I reference various profiles in major magazines such as Who, OK! and Women's Fitness Magazine? Would being profiled in significant print publications qualify as independent and quality references?

Tyrone28 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's heaps of speaking engagements here, but you're not showing me anything that amounts of substantial coverage of Babet herself that hasn't been paid for. She's got a good publicist obviously, but an advertorial piece in a "lifestyle magazine" is not reliable coverage. I have to ask, what is your connection (if any) with Babet or The Biggest Loser? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]