Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 28 December 30 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (TV Host)

Blake Alma (TV Host) (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)

Creator bypassed AfC nomination process after numerous failed attempts to prove notability. This article is also to circumvent the salting of Blake Alma, a 2013 attempt at creation. Wyliepedia 23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wyliepedia 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 23:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:23, 30 December 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 merged to OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops. Although a reasonable number of sources exist to show that the word exists and has a consistent definition, no showing has been made that the article can be increased beyond the current dicdef. It has been pointed out that this word has been used in contexts outside of OkCupid, but it remains clear that the primary association of the word is with OkCupid, and other uses can be discussed in the context of its origination with that website. bd2412 T 02:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexuality

AfDs for this article:
Sapiosexuality (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)

Term is

talk) 23:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Merging also exists, which is why I noted that this topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article.
talk) 00:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is too esoteric and lacks widespread and in-depth coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just a passing fad in terms of it being a term. It is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon at the very least.Knox490 (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues). A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a
    π, ν) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment I've just seen [3] (via Hacker News) about this. I have no prejudice against re-creation with better sources in the future.
    π, ν) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - DictDef. Or Non Notable Neologism. Pick one. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes
    WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Stuff like With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities. etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in Intelligence (journal) [4] that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks. Not just okcupid. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our
    general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: See
    Czar's take on the concept's notability and the article's possibility for expansion. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete--a few recent write-ups (well, old ones, and no new ones--so it hasn't really caught on) do not make for a subject that meets the GNG; we're falling victim to a recentist addiction to fairly trivial mentions. If this weren't trivial, we'd have more and more serious hits in books etc. than this footnote--which isn't better than our article (and makes me question Wiley). I have, however, ordered a copy of this book--mreow. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite the Delete and Salt SNOW vote on the last (3rd) AfD, the term appears to now be a notable thing. This just popped up today in the Daily Mail. [[5]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And this yesterday: [[6]]TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rosenthal (artist)

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

Does not appear notable with significant coverage in independent sources either as an actor (

WP:NARTIST) Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in independent sources. Just another PR piece on a non-notable individual. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not supported by reliable sources.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NACTOR, NARTIST, GNG, etc. South Nashua (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Current article state seems to violate WP:PROMO too. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Blakk

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

Can't see the claim to notability here, and no significant coverage in independent sources. She played minor roles in a number of stage works and performed with live shows for Disney. I can't find independent corroboration of playing the role Marianne in Shout!, she certainly didn't originate the role. She does not appear to be credited on the Sardi single. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her roles as an actress are just not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor roles only and only 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in major media sources, nor any coverage of significance in other sources. The SMH ref inline doesn't even mention the subject. Does not pass GNG or
    WP:NOTPROMO. Kb.au (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable actress fails the
    WP:GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept. bd2412 T 03:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prajesh Sen

AfDs for this article:
Prajesh Sen (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 subject does not meet

WP:FILMMAKER. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America1000 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – From this
    independent of the subject
    with no false positives. My results are shown below:
Indian editors can help to find sources but even the sources that I have posted are in my opinion enough. I was considering erring on the side of caution as this is a
TOOSOON but there are probably sources out there that are hard to access and often need custom searches or perhaps there is more stuff in print only (unlikely in my opinion). I'm unsure why all the sources I have found are post-September; maybe it's a problem with my search. I don't think the sources are quite passing mention in response to NA1000
's statement.
In conclusion, yes he fails
WP:JOURNALIST (same as CREATIVE, DIRECTOR, and FILMMAKER) under criterion 4c: The person's work (or works) has [sic] won significant critical attention due to his numerous awards for journalism (let's hope they're not made up). J947 (c · m) 22:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Bus na Comhairle

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only source is a bus schedule for the company itself. Fails CORPDEPTH. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to
    WP:GNG for an individual article, but is entirely proper to be mentioned there (where it technically is, but a bit of detail on 'which islands' would not be amiss), and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Outer_Hebrides#Transport where the subject is already mentioned. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any sources; a redirect would be a cleaner outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Outer Hebrides#Transport, which ought to mention who owns the company. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect as suggested. I do not think there is enough notability for a separate article, but the transport section of the Outer Hebrides article would seem an obvious place to have this kind of information. Dunarc (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dilts

AfDs for this article:
Robert Dilts (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)

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still no reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, largely promotional and supported only by self-published fringe sources. Famousdog (c) 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a classic promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation, preferably as a redirect  The article itself uses future tense, and after reading [8], suggests that the article's future tense is advancing a split from the founding ideas of NLP.  For reference, one of the two primary sources is a biography with extensive detail, [9], and the second is written by the topic.
    As for the topic itself, reading the article on NLP shows analysis that reaches into concepts of religion, just as the second primary source lists "Spiritual" as an additional layer of the "NeuroLogical levels".  The NLP article's mention of New Age quasi-religion fits in with the topic's association with University of California at Santa Cruz.  The NLP article has 11 cites to the topic at hand.  I see that the topic at hand has been translated into Russian, German, French, and Italian.  I find in Google searches that the topic has a patent regarding biofeedback, and the primary-source biography couples his work with the biofeedback game "Wild Divine", a topic with Ghits in Google Scholar.  Certainly Wikipedia notable as per the lede and nutshell; although if we are having trouble getting a standalone article on the topic, space could be created at NLP to identify him in a section called History.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a CV with a few promotional sentences tacked on. No claim of meeting
    π, ν) 17:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No opinion on whether a redirect to
π, ν) 17:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

WP:ATD-R and the absence of BLP concerns. A Traintalk 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Marion Lee Kempner

Marion Lee Kempner (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)

Clearly does not meet

WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:SOLDIER and his letter does not particularly stand out compared to others written by soldiers.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails notability guidelines for both writers and soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam - His story has been inspirational to many (for instance, here is a long article about Kemper from the Galveston Daily News in 1998 [10]), but most newspapers.com and google books results are about his letter. The letter is famous because it was collected in that anthology. The anthology receives a good deal of coverage and that article could be expanded (or an article on the book of the same title created), and discussion of why the letters were important added which could mention Kempner, particularly his characterization of America as a "a country of thorns and cuts", etc. So while the article doesn't currently mention Kempner, most people searching for Kempner will be doing so because of the anthology, and a redirect there seems appropriate. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If redirected, then to an article about the book, which contains three of his letters. The Kempner article currently links to the movie; that should be fixed if a book article is created.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cheung Yiu-sing

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

Fails notability criteria, all the press is about his death, so

WP:BIO1E applies. Onel5969 TT me 19:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 30 December 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) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tad Riley

Tad Riley (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)

While an interesting footnote to the cold war, simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivia and Wikipedia is
    WP:Not News. Kierzek (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 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. A Traintalk 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce M. Macfarlane

Bruce M. Macfarlane (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)

Minor tv personality who doesn't meet

WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable mayor and TV anchorman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The Illinois legislature is filled with notable people who gave the topic attention, but I'm having trouble finding sources on Google.  [This page provides something he did as mayor.  WGN is a 50,000 watt radio station, which at night can be heard over most of the populated US and I assume Canada.  WGN-TV went on the air in 1948, so was one of the earliest broadcasters.  His father was associated with the Tribune newspaper.  It seems likely that someone with access to Chicago newspaper archives would have a chance of finding more on this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor being a single-market local TV or radio personality is an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an article that's this weakly sourced. And saying that improved sourcing might be possible is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept, either — somebody needs to show the evidence that enough sourcing to get him over GNG does exist, preferably by actually improving the article but at least by showing some hard results from an actual search of Chicago newspaper archives in this discussion, and it is not enough to just theorize that maybe better sources might exist. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want the article kept, then you're the one whose job it is to find enough sources to get it kept. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

π, ν) 17:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

John W. Overton

John W. Overton (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)

Uncited. Does not meet either

WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet out notability guidelines for soliders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Easilly meets V, NPOV, NOR, N, NSPORTS. I don't like to editorialize at AfD, but Overton is one of the greatest college middle-distance runners of all time and I'm unhappy to see this nomination and the current state of the discussion. I'll work on adding sources, but in the meantime, here is a short article about Overton in the Yale Alumni Magazine: [11]. Here is an article about his recent induction in the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame [12]. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I added sources from the track and field side and have more to add. He clearly meets
    WP:NSPORTS by being a multiple world record holder. He was also multiple national champion and collegiate champion. All that before we get to the war hero stuff. Trackinfo (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep - Seems he passes GNG and
    WP:NSPORT - holding world records. Voters should be mindful that SOLDIER creates a presumption of notability yet doesn't exclude notability for soldiers not meeting it (either a soldier or via non-soldier activities).Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Nearly passes
    WP:NSPORTS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Passes
    WP:NSPORTS as a world record holding athlete. I have noticed a very concerning pattern, as well, where the world has been turned upside down and supplementary notability standards, intended to...supplement...GNG in cases where notable topics might have difficulty demonstrating GNG compliance, are being considered a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "it passes GNG, but fails [SUPNG], delete as not notable". This really needs to be something that is, for want of a better term, stamped out, as it actually is a genuine threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: meets the presumption at
    WP:NTRACK based on points 5 & 7, while the amount of coverage in the article appears to meet the GNG, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep qualifies as NSPORTS
  • Keep as qualifies as NSPORTS Wpgbrown (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes
    WP:SOLDIER #1 apart from anything else, with the Navy Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross. Not sure why editors seem to be saying he doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Koláček

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

Per source searches and citation checks, this subject does not meet

WP:NACADEMIC. North America1000 18:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:19, 29 December 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. Katietalk 20:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service North Little Rock, Arkansas

National Weather Service North Little Rock, Arkansas (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)

Unnecessary spin-out articles of

Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Other articles being nominated:

National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Topeka, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Wichita, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Jackson, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Paducah, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Kansas City/Pleasant Hill, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service St. Louis, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Caribou, Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Boston, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Albany, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Binghamton, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service State College, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Baltimore/Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Miami, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service New Orleans/Baton Rouge, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Shreveport, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Tulsa, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Memphis, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Nashville, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Amarillo, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Fort Worth, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Weather Service Boise, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep Illinois articles mentioned for example are hardly lacking in content nor do they look full of Original Research as charged. CaribDigita (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago, IL article is little more than a list of radio stations. The Lincoln, IL is one of the better written articles, but I still believe it fails
Rusf10 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Rusf10 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Whatever their connection is, you have 20+ sources in the Norman NWS article and they definitely don't have a stone wall between them.
chatter) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The Norman article is not quite as good as it appears on the surface. It starts off with a mostly unsourced history section, then it goes into a discussion about a notable weather event which already has its own article, next comes a description of its website (this section should just be deleted regardless), and then a list of radio stations. That's it, almost all of the sources are the NWS website.--
Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Sohn (I know you don't like me calling you by your first name), do you have an actual policy reason to keep these? Because that is an outright personal attack and nothing else.--
Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Read
WP:HARASS and this is an explicit final warning. The policy argument is that this bulk nomination is an abuse of process from an editor who has been warned previously about bulk nominations. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey you picked your username, not me.--
Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sherlock, the user name is eight characters and makes no indication of how it is to be parsed; that's based solely on you;re attempts to disclose information about me in violation of
WP:HARASS and follow it; else dig your own grave. As you seem to be following me around, you'll see that I have participated in AfDs above and beyond those included in your initial threats aimed at me, both now and for the past dozen years. When a bulk AfD popped up, I was astounded to see that an editor like you who had already been warned against making abusive bulk deletions was at it again. I thus participated. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So you just admitted you decided to participate after you saw I nominated it. Youre clearing following me around (not the other way around), but that's okay.--
Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Bulshit, dude. I said I saw a bulk nomination on AfD and was surprised to see your name on it after I had edited the nom. Remember Sherlock that you're the one who promised to delete articles because you believed they were connected to me (see this threat, as a reminder). Take a look at how participation is tracking here and tell me where consensus is? Are you going to withdraw the nomination or will you just keep battling away in the true spirit of disruptive deletionism? Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a
    WP:SOFIXIT. Given the size of the city and the various other similar articles for similar sized cities, I don't see why the article was ever nominated for deletion. The National Wealther Service does important work. Deletionism at its worst is at play here.Knox490 (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. After relisting, consensus has developed that the article fails

WP:OR and doesn't have proper attribution for copying within Wikipedia. ansh666 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Frontier Strip

Frontier Strip (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 phrase "frontier strip" appears to have been invented solely for this Wikipedia namespace. I can not find any historical or scholarly examples of the phrase "frontier strip" being used in relation to the United States, and as far as I can tell the phrase "frontier strip" does not appear in any of the article's listed references . The small number of Google search hits (regular search, books and scholar) for "frontier strip" appear to be traceable back to this article, with the exception of some references that are clearly about other countries.

In sum, this page's definition of a "frontier strip" is not a recognized grouping of U.S. states. In addition, the general topic is already thoroughly reviewed by American frontier and other state and regional pages. Thomas H. White (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree--it should be deleted. I cannot find any usage. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 16:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming to History of the Great Plains or History of the American Great Plains (I think the former is better right now, since
American Great Plains redirects to Great Plains). This would be a minor repurposing, with frontier strip replaced with great plains in the text and the image perhaps replaced with File:Map of the Great Plains.png. The description section doesn't really have anything not in Great Plains, and this page would, I think, be better kept separate but referred to in the history section of that article. Smmurphy(Talk
)
While most of the article deals with history, some things would not fit into an article titled "History of". That's why I'd prefer renaming to "American Great Plains" with a hatnote at the top going to the existing "Great Plains" article.--
Rusf10 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, but American Great Plains already exists (is a redirect to Great Plains). As I meant to say, the non-history stuff from this article could be merged into that article, except it is already there, so it can just be trimmed in this article. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge each section into the history section of a relevant state or region article such as
    American West or Great Plains. See Below The edit history of this article is eye-opening: The original is nothing more than a list of states accompanied by an unsourced and speculative explanation. A later revision attempts to attribute it to the US Census, but this is also fails to support the grouping of the states. Everything else seems to be a mishmash of events that occurred within or around this group of states, but there is still nothing that ties it together as a cohesive region. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet on a possible renaming or merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 03:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge a nice piece of OR, which of course has no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is consensus for merging, but not on a target. So the question is: where do you think it should be merged? ansh666 05:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the historical information appears to have been copy-and-pasted from other Wiki articles by User:Reddi in June and July 2009 without any references or attribution. I copied the article into my userspace at User:Dlthewave/Frontier Strip Draft and removed everything that I could verify as copied, just to see what's left. If deleted, I don't think we would lose very much that isn't covered elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is a historical concept; Glad i caught this so get the wikimarkup before any deletion; Maybe move it somewhere else; Sad, not the WP of yesterday ... just another reason not to contribute much anymore; Enjoy --J. D. Redding 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, most of your contributions will be retained in the articles from which they were copied. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but destroy the history; Cheers --J. D. Redding 20:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether merging or deletion is preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 29 December 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. I'm withdrawing this; I ma nominate in a year or two when opinion about promotionalism becomes more rational DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taziki's Mediterranean Café

AfDs for this article:
Taziki's Mediterranean Café (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)

essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy WP:NOT. The previous discussion argued on the grounds of notability, but I do not see why. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - notable national chain, and unique in its own right. Article cites multiple secondary and third party RS using inline citations. If this article doesn't pass as keep, then we might as well AfD Panera Bread, Dôme (coffeehouse), McCafé, and all the others listed in Category:Bakery cafés, and that's just one of many restaurant/cafe categories. Atsme📞📧 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes WP:GNG. The article is written based upon what reliable sources state about it. Positive press coverage does not automatically equate to advertising. If the company received significant coverage in the form of negative press for some matter, I would have included that as well. The article does not have a promotional tone and does not encourage readers to do business with the company. North America1000 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I !voted keep at the previous AfD, and my rationale still stands. (I will add more reason later) –Ammarpad (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to pass GNG. PROMO/SPAM doesn't apply to RS-worthy refs, that appears to be the case here after a quick peek. South Nashua (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable regional chain with over 80 restaurants. Plenty of decent press coverage. REAL certification section could use cleaning up but that is hardly a reason to delete the article.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 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. I'm withdrawing this; I see the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused an unfortunate-- but I hope temporary -- change in our views on promotionalism. I'll probably renominate once we return to rationality. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie B's Hot Chicken

AfDs for this article:
Hattie B's Hot Chicken (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)

very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists . The previous discussion was closed because of sockpuppettry, but that shouldn't prevent an immediate renomination. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Not only is this a renowned local eatery but it has been covered very subatantially by national media such as USA Today and National Geographic. Very notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Comfortably passes
    WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. For starters, the USA Today article is certainly not "local coverage", and is not a listing. North America1000 17:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Multi-state restaurant with abundant national
    WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 29 December 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. I don't see the promotional tone here but this is a clear

WP:NORG fail. No prejudice against recreation with better sources. A Traintalk 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Nai Zindagi Trust

Nai Zindagi Trust (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)

Nothing of significant kind to pass

WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 04:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not an advertisment. There is no advertising it it, at all. It is a charity that provides blood screening for druggies. scope_creep (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So where is coverage to pass
WP:NORG? Störm (talk) 12:24, 31 December 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) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club Asturias de Puebla

Club Asturias de Puebla (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 defunct amateur club. Does not pass either

WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in
talk) 22:40, 29 December 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) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barney crew

List of Barney crew (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)

Pure listcruft. I checked the first couple names in most of the sections and none are notable. Page is unsourced, and save for one bluelink is a dead end. I see nowhere to go with this. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We're
    chatter) 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 December 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) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Dahal

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

All references are in non-

general notability is very doubtful. While it is undoubtedly possible for fraudulent psychics, etc. to become notable (e.g., Jeane Dixon), the coverage of this boy does not appear to rise to the necessary level as yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

power~enwiki is correct, this could have been handled at the article's talk page. A Traintalk 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Un reflet dans le vent

Un reflet dans le vent (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)

There is already an article about the set of 8 preludes that contain this piece. This article adds nothing to it. Squandermania (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 15:23, 29 December 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 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sisk

Wayne Sisk (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)

Wayne Sisk was a junior NCO in

notability; his wife appeared in local news stories more often than Sisk himself. He was portrayed in nine of the ten episodes of the miniseries. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I see nothing notable in his military career; and that as a Baptist minister looks equally ordinary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the subject of a miniseries alone does not make someone notable, and nothing else even comes close.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M Howard

Robert M Howard (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)

Businessman who does not seem to meet

WP:GNG. Appears to be written by an editor with an undeclared conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 December 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 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Prior

Richard Prior (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 is sourced entirely to 2 primary sources, and the google hits aren't very promising. In addition, an editor claiming to be the subject insists that the information is largely incorrect; an assertion that is difficult to dismiss without quality sources to check.

Tell me all about it. 13:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment See this --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 refs neither of which assert notability, the article appears mundane. Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL, When I first saw this I thought not only does he deserve an article, but he was pretty damn funny too. Then I realized the spelling was different (not
    Rusf10 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
Tell me all about it. 14:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found some local news articles such as [27] and there are mentions in news articles outside of the region such as Washington Post [28] and The News-Gazette / Champaign-Urbana [29] The stuff the editor wrote saying things were incorrect were mainly concerning his degrees at educational institutions. He still was a conductor for Atlanta, Emory, and LaGrange [30] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. I didn’t even find evidence that this page ever existed. I have, however, flagged your user page per U1, if that’s what you want. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChristiWilken

ChristiWilken (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 page is useless ChristiWilken (talk) 12:58, 29 December 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.

✉ 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Lemon Wallet

Lemon Wallet (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)

Of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets available, this defunct wallet does not stand out. Notability not established. Ysangkok (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has plenty of reliable sources coverage in the article such as CBS, USA Today, CNN, PC Magazine, NYT blog (blogs are allowed from NYT). I don't see any mention of bitcoin in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources, some of which include [31], [32], [33]. Many additional sources are also available. North America1000 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources present are enough to show passing
    WP:GNG. It is worth noting, this article from The Wall Street Journal and this from TechCrunch are substantial enough above any threshold to call them passing mention. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 30 December 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 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Steinger

AfDs for this article:
Michael Steinger (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)

Seems to be a non-notable lawyer who unsuccessfully represented a client in an action against a celebrity, and failed to win a nomination to the Senate. I don't believe he meets

WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rule of law is important and he does appear to be politically/civically engaged, but given the overabundance of lawyers now, he really has to separate himself from the pack. He fails to do this. I don't see adequate in-depth coverage from reliable sources.Knox490 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defeated candidates for state legislature are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where I live I see his commercials (and just recently I hired a lawyer like Steinger to represent me after I was struck by a car while out for my morning walk) for his law firm all the time. That said, not notable lawyer and failed politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article on this person was previously deleted after an AFD. The discussion can be found here. I nominated this article for speedy deletion and suggest both articles be SALTED if this edition is deleted again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

✉ 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Pelotillehue

Pelotillehue (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

WP:OR, no indication of real-world notability. At the very least, could be redirected to Condorito along with the other two town names mentioned in the article; that’s why I didn’t PROD it. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Not independently notable, but is a plausible search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Galaxy

Ticket Galaxy (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 either

GNG here. This is simply an advitorial John from Idegon (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promo 'cruft on a nn business. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McVeigh

Rob McVeigh (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

WP:NACTOR. Run-of-the-mill actor. Edwardx (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unsuccessful reality show contestant, who has done some theatre performing, but nothing that rises to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiki Nakajima

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

Non-notable voice actor whose filmography consists of minor roles. No reliable third-party sources cited to support any claims. Does not pass

WP:NOTE. Disputed prod —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So based on this, he does not meet
WP:ENT Chances of finding featured news articles about him are slim. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or draftify - Considering his lack of major roles, he arguably does not pass
    csdnew 02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 14:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet
    WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Existing references are completely insufficient for a

WP:BLP. The "wait-and-see" approach advocated by BabbaQ is not appropriate for a BLP. A Traintalk 13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Erik Lidbom

Erik Lidbom (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. He does appear to have written some songs performed by others, but there is no evidence that any reliable and independent sources have written about him. Appears to be competent jobbing song writer. Has been templated since September 2017 as needing sources. Searches only reveal the same sort of material - track listings etc. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   00:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per references. It is obvious that he has done the work in music that the article states. I think that Keep for now is the best. For a new evaluation in a year.BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no indications of notability. Sources included are online directoris, passing mentions, and / or
    WP:SPIP. If there are indeed reliable sources on the subject, they should be presented at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erma (webcomic)

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

I do not believe this article meets the

general notability guidelines. I have been keeping track of this subject for a while hoping to be able to create an article on it someday, but only one reliable source has ever covered it (that being Bloody Disgusting, twice: [34] [35]). Nearly all of the citations currently used in the article are primary sources linking to the webcomic itself, Tapastic, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. There is also this blog post, which is not a reliable source and this top list, which is not reliable or notable either. Seeing as Erma does not meet the general notability guidelines, this article should be deleted. It is unfortunate, seeing as how much work seems to have gone into it. ~Mable (chat) 09:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 10:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. It's borderline, but both articles are pretty detailed. Technically qualifies as "multiple" and there is enough there to build an article around. But it isn't an obvious case. A !vote to delete is certainly justifiable. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 12:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Per Hobit.
  • Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N. Also, probably
    WP:TOOSOON. Sources are supposed to be intellectually independent of the others. This means sources are supposed to be from various publishers. Not multiple sources from the same publisher. Create this article later, when more sources emerge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2021 NBA All-Star Game

2021 NBA All-Star Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:CRYSTALBALL and GNG, can be recreated in future James (talk/contribs) 21:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 01:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 01:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - For now at least. It is far
    too soon to create these types of articles. When All-Star discussion for this game exists, it can be re-created.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Per
    WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect, and salt until 13 February 2021.  Every sentence is written to state events in 2021 in Wikipedia's voice.  2021 sources are not currently available, so the statements in the article cannot be verified.  There is only one reference in the article, a primary source.  Fails
    WP:DEL14.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It is inconsistent to advocate "redirect" and state that it fails
    WP:NOTNEWSPAPER #2 states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, [or] sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  Perhaps WP:Notability (events) gets to the core issue when it states, "In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, [and] diversity...of the coverage."  18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [Note: DEL12 changed to DEl14.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)][reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since everybody else was too lazy to do so, I added the current story about the event to the article, discussing the
known knowns. Trackinfo (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the designation "key bus route" is not being set by an independent source, but one could make the same argument for List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, for example. This is not me trotting out an other-stuff-exists defense; what I am saying is that perhaps there should be an SNG discussion to decide the issue more broadly.

If a merge is appropriate, that can be discussed at the article's talk page. A Traintalk 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of key MBTA bus routes

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

Per

WP:NOR. Bus routes are almost always non-notable and an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Merge to
    π, ν) 19:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep (and rename) - The nominator appears to misunderstand the subject matter here, which I can understand given the title. This is not a subjective and original list of key bus routes in a city, it's a page describing a category of bus routes in Boston formally designated as "Key Bus Routes", a unique status with distinct features (both operationally and legally/funding-related) that differentiate them from other MBTA bus routes. Multiple reliable secondary sources confirm this usage, as indicated above. While the MBTA is a primary source, many transportation articles rely partially on primary sources for the simple reason that secondary sources just don't repeat material found in primary sources. However, since this page is more than a mere list and ask explains the history and characteristics of Key Bus Routes, I would propose removing the confusing "List of" and renaming to MBTA Key Bus Routes. I would be willing to do post-move cleanup work to better serve the new title. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (To be clear, I endorse keeping either way, whether the move/rename is also adopted or not.) Shelbystripes (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming sounds like a good idea. The fact of the existence of a separate category of bus routes is more significant than the particular numbering of routes within it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is fun: while looking for local/regional government sources (of which there are some — city councilors and such), I turned up a civil engineering master's thesis from MIT on this topic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the subject matter perfectly. The AfD questions both the criteria of key bus routes being original research and whether any of the bus routes are notable in their own right (or as a collective). It appears from all the sources presented, that the key bus routes criteria is a self published by the bus brand themselves and that notability is yet to be established as the sources are mostly trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the fact that you keep referring to this as a "self-published list" (and to a regional multimodal transit agency as a "bus brand") shows you don't know the subject matter at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be opposed to a rename. "Key Bus Routes" appears to be used as a specific noun phrase in most of these sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes program) - The article needs to be expanded to include more about the history of the program and the current improvements they're working on for these routes, but it has gotten a lot of press over the years for the reasons others have stated, including late night service and key-route-specific bus stop improvements and treatments. I don't understand the "original research" claim by the nominator as that is for editors on Wikipedia, not government agencies providing the service in question. As for "self published", where else would this information come from if not the MBTA? Other editors have provided link after link of sources from reliable news outlets outside of the MBTA's control to show the notoriety and depth of press coverage in the region. While someone in another country might not care much about a list of bus routes in a random medium-sized city in the US, can't that be said about a vast majority of articles on Wikipedia about local and regional matters? Grk1011 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again. Routine coverage about night services and bus stop improvements is trivial at best. Where is some actual resources showing the history of these "key routes" from valid third party and independent (non MBTA published) sources. Wikipedia is not a bus fansite catered to a small audience. Ajf773 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Independent third party sources discussing Key Bus Routes were already provided above by another user. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which ones, and be specific. Ajf773 (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't been involved in AfDs much very recently, but you're being a bit inflammatory here. Editors can state their reasons and provide whatever backup they feel is necessary. An admin will then read over the responses and make a decision based on the apparent consensus (not votes) of the community. There is no requirement that you, as the nominator, are satisfied with the responses. Grk1011 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm aware that an AfD is a consensus, not a vote. I am, like anyone else participating, allowed to dispute claims. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your objections have been clearly noted by now. You are coming across as berating each and every editor who votes, not adding anything new in the process, just repeating what you'd already said before they voted. Clearly not everyone agrees with your interpretation of
                Assuming in good faith that this is not your intent, your tone and repetition still come across as hostile and may discourage editors who would disagree with you from commenting, undermining the integrity of the AfD process. Please consider the consequences of your continued aggressive responses. Newly participating editors can already consider the quality of sources provided (for example) and your objections to them, since your objections are already recorded further above in full. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • Given you understand this is a debate and I am allowed agree or disagree with everything that is added this this discussion, from where I see it. I don't see the need for you to post this, it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I agree with that. Those who want to keep this article need to actually produce secondary sources that specifically discuss this set of routes, instead of attacking an editor who points out the lack of significant wider secondary coverage.Charles (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The issue was that over a dozen secondary sources were linked in the various responses above, but this editor does not appear to like them, claiming they are either regional press (and somehow bad) or the source of their articles is the primary source (MBTA). I simply pointed out that asking the same question to every single commenter when it's has already been answered is disruptive. It's bizarre that we're expected by this one editor to find some outside source to prove that the MBTA has designated its own routes as key. Only the MBTA can decide that and the criteria for being "key" are listed and sourced. As a government body, its procedures are transparent. Grk1011 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have mentioned why I don't think they are up to the standard of sources required for notability. Bus routes are not notable unless there is significant and independent coverage in secondary sources. MBTA itself is a primary source. Other sources which mention things like service changes are trivial (and most of them don't even mention any of the route numbers or any mention of "key routes". As there is a lot of historical content in the article space but a lack of sources validating them, I'm still unconvinced. Ajf773 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's fine, as long as you actually understand the requirement here is not to convince you personally. Your personal approval is not necessary. Other editors clearly do accept the sources already provided, even if you don't. They're not required to convince you if you insist on remaining unconvinced. You do understand that, right? Shelbystripes (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is however like the other deleted articles this too fails GNG, I have to disagree this does provide route information (the articles contains numbers, tos, froms, maps and times so as such this fails NOTGUIDE). –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article (and perhaps a few sources) rather than rashly claiming this is a travel guide. Detailing the frequency and span-of-service standards that the agency uses is not a schedule. Giving the official names of the routes (the MBTA and its predecessors have always used number + terminal/route as the official name) is no more a travel guide than saying that Amtrak trains 1/2 is the Sunset Limited. And the map - notably not the current map - is used to illustrate that the agency considers the routes important enough to include on the rapid transit map, not as a map to actually navigate the system. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All in a nutshell it's a travel guide, As you spend your time with everything MBTA it's blatantly obvious you're going to debunk everyones !votes and harp on repeating the same hymn about how it's not a travel guide and how we're all wrong- I'll save you the bother - It's a travel guide, No matter what way or which way you look at it ... it's a travel guide, As I said it includes prices, destinations, bus company names, maps ..... Telling me the map is for this and the prices are for that doesn't prove a thing - I'm judging the article on an outside perspective and how I personally percieve it. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article include prices? (Apart from mentioning the $10 million price tag for the Key Bus Routes Improvement Project.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft- or userspace so as to be worked on as suggested. --J04n(talk page) 18:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - This is inappropriate. I offered to improve the article if moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes to ensure the article aligns with the new title. That work isn't necessary if the article isn't moved. Either way, it's already a developed article with multiple reliable sources and should not be userfied. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply linking to
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-response and adds no value to the discussion. It's an essay (not a policy) and notes that there can be "valid or invalid" reasons for raising "other stuff exists" as an argument, and that when the point is fairly argued, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." It seems to me that a valid question was raised (what distinguishes this article from an array of other articles that have been established on Wikipedia), and it is fair to expect a valid answer from you on that, not just a link to an essay that can cut both ways. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not be a policy but a simply concept meaning we don't assume keep because articles of similar nature exist. Many of them are candidates for AfD as well. We don't bulk AfD articles as each article should be assessed on its own merits. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You are using circular logic and mischaracterizing the content of
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead of an actual answer. You're now taking that one step further, using the potential for some other articles to be deleted in the future, to argue that this one should be deleted now also. The fate of those AfDs is far from assured, since they haven't even begun yet. Now, can you give a valid explanation for what makes this article less notable than other articles in the same category, as you were asked? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears to be the obvious answer from the original question. We simply do not use the existence of other articles as a basis for keeping or deleting articles. We are discussing this article on its own merits, not the merits of other articles. There are plenty of reasons already given in this discussion why I believe this article does not comply with the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's not the point.
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability". Someone identified an entire category of similar articles, and so far no valid reason has been given for disregarding that whole category of articles when considering this particular AfD. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
My point in bring up the category is that there are 64 lists of bus routes in that US based category (and more globally). Other than this one, I haven't found one that has been taken to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key MBTA bus routes dating back to 2006, meaning this has been around for, actually 12 and a half years. Poor wikipedia has been in disrepute for all this time because of its existence (that's sarcasm). It also means this one has been taken to AfD twice now. Again, what makes this one special? At the time it was saved as no consensus, even though there were 5 Keeps to 3 Deletes. One of the Delete votes commented astutely; "Delete its a bag of crap.", another was just "per nom", so the argument of that third delete vote had to be a doozey to outweigh all those Keeps. One Keep respondent noted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 which was a Speedy Keep-Withdrawn. If you are prepared to take all of those 64+ lists to AfD, then that is a different wholesale discussion. Otherwise the long term existence of all of this stuff proves a de facto validity to keeping these lists. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per unscintillating: if it's got a merge target, then a merge discussion is preferred by policy to any deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whether this subject is
    original research.Charles (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient, not arguing that the general concept of such a list should be deleted.Trackinfo (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the content comes from external sources, it's not original research, even if those sources were published in Boston (which not all of them were). XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient" .... we have ... a good 2-3 times, If you want to ignore policy based reasons then that's up to you but asking everyone to repeat their reasons again and again and again is disruptive, You have your answers above and you have also have solid policy-based !Delete arguments bove .... unlike the !Keeps which are all essentially "Keep because
WP:ITSNOTABLE". –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You are failing to understand that the set of routes taken together need secondary sources. Urban planning studies are primary sources.Charles (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already have two references not from the MBTA that discuss the grouping of these routes into a common category. In fact, that's what the list is sourced to at the moment. The point of citing references that discuss specific routes within that category is to make historical information available about those specific routes — information that is independent of the MBTA and not characteristic of a travel guide. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOR 45 sources, many of them from government agencies but multiple government agencies reporting this information. Clearly refuted.
Bus routes are almost always non-notable proved false by the existence of the 64 other lists I identified.
an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability. the sources I found in a simple Google search shows these are specifically identified routes based on federal, state, associated cities and the agency itself. The identification of these routes are sourced in the article dating back to 2006, clearly a dozen years before the NOM. Did you really read that? So the basis of the entire NOM is disingenuous to begin with.
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N an astute echo of the NOM.
Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG Another echo. And there is no
WP:OR
but its also not in the article. At least here in the US, people don't know how to find the local operator. We, as the place people come for information, should have the information. Then at best they are three clicks away from finding the company, its website and the generic schedule page in varying forms of presentation (some of which absolutely suck). If editors have gone through the trouble to present this information, someone explain in actual words (rather than ambiguous essays or non-existent policy statements), what is the problem with wikipedia having this information publicly available?
I've never been to Massachusetts, I have no dog in this fight. Nor do I have a dog in UK, though I have visited decades ago. What I learn is from what is in the article, its attached sources and Google. Unlike a lot of AfDs, there is a lot of there there. I extremely dislike aggressive stupidity trying to push legitimate content off of wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AfD has been relisted multiple times and there is clearly, at a minimum, no consensus to delete. I propose closing the AfD without deletion. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shelbystripes has !voted Keep above so ofcourse they're going to say this, Consensus in my eyes is towards delete due to the GNG-failing at best however I !voted delete so shan't say what I believe. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm eager for an outside observer to weigh in now. With the number of editors who have !voted Keep (and given consistent reasoning for doing so) and the utter failure of the Delete commenters to explain why this post warrants deletion when many similar articles are considered notable, I can't see anything remotely close to a Delete consensus. Perhaps someone who hasn't weighed in yet will be able to resolve this mystery. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've explained a good 3-4 times why it should be deleted, All of the keeps are nothing more than "
WP:ILIKEIT - not a valid reason to keep, Alls we need is an admin to come a long, read the consensus and smack the delete button. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow, that's almost the exact opposite of the actual discussion. One Delete commenter literally just linked to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says a general body of articles may be considered when evaluating notability in an AfD, basically said "Well I want to nominate those other articles for deletion too". You cannot use your hypothetical future AfDs of other similar articles to justify deleting this article. That is not how Wikipedia works. And reading the rest of the discussion, the consistency of editors weighing in against Delete, and the fact that two relistings were required and still couldn't generate consensus, I can't see how any rational person would interpret this discussion as a consensus for Delete. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I honestly don't believe this AfD will end up with a consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that there's no consensus; the multiple different content change / merge proposals can be discussed elsewhere.
π, ν) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Only an uninvolved admin can decide whether there is a concensus, having given due weight to policy based argument.Charles (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge- The history section only should be merged into
    Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nada (thread) 

AfDs for this article:
    Nada (thread)  (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 sources cited at all and fails 

    talk) 11:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a non-English word for drawstring and has no place on the English-language wiki. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not an English term (at elast not in the sense of the article), of dubious notability, and barely supported (no pun intended) by the reference. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I am sympathetic to Zagalejo's arguments, there is consensus to delete the article. This may be due to the difficulty English-speaking westerners to assess the coverage of the PBA, but

    the current notability consensus for basketball does not include the PBA (perhaps this should change). Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Eric Salamat

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

    Fails

    WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 09:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 09:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 09:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources seem like routine sports reporting and are all about his hopes to get back up to the PBA, which isn't even considered a top level league.Sandals1 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    People keep citing WP:NBASKETBALL like it's holy scripture, but I think a case could be made for including the PBA. There is a fairly recent discussion about that here. In terms of talent, the PBA may not rank very high, but in terms of fan interest and media coverage, it's a reasonably significant league. The definition of "routine sports coverage" is a tricky one, but these articles at least go beyond the basic reporting of game scores and league transactions. Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a personal call, but I don't think 3 short articles saying he wants to get back to the PBA meets
    WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 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. It would be good if the sources turned up in this discussion could make their way into the article. A Traintalk 13:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (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 fails

    WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rentier (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Shelbystripes. Also dug up some further coverage. [52] Brustopher (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Nothing so controversial here to warrant an extraordinary third relist. A Traintalk 13:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Life of Black Tiger

    Life of Black Tiger (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 page was a suggestion a while ago but I didn't create it as I found it non-notable. The mention in Kotaku is not a "significant" one but only mentions it off hand as an example of one of the crappiest games promoted by Sony. That leaves Eurogamer and Jimquisition as the only significant mentions and according to

    WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 01:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:57, 29 December 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. Nomination rationale has been clearly rebutted by Nick Moyes. A Traintalk 13:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Condosity

    Condosity (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)

    1) No sources 2) cannot find reliable secondary/tertiary sources on this subject suggesting it isn't that important 3) Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilxFish (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I do normally sign my comments, must have just slipped my mind. Thank you for expanding on it I couldn't find any good secondary sources when I tried. EvilxFish (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehreen Syed

    Mehreen Syed (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)

    Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

    WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- an advertorial for a nn person. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails
      WP:NACTOR. Article was created really long before and should have already passed notability. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I'm interpreting LaundryPizza03's comment as support for deletion. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to UZi if a good article can be written there. A Traintalk 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gab3

    Gab3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails

    WP:MUSICBIO. This singer is notable primarily for his work as a member of the musical duo UZi. The sources cited in the article consist of primary source interviews, articles which make trivial mention of this person, or sources that support his notability through his work in the duo UZi. A online search revealed few secondary sources to support notability, independent of UZi. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 03:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, it would be appropriate to delete this page and create UZi. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I reviewed the footnotes and the musical artist lacks in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Perhaps it is merely a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. I have my doubts given the nearly decade long career of the artist, but things can change given persistence, refinement of skills, etc.Knox490 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 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 12:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Beckner

    Andrew Beckner (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)

    At first glance, the number of sources create the illusion of extensive coverage. However, many of these sources are either unreliable or do not describe this musician in-depth. I'm afraid Beckner does not pass

    WP:GNG; his bands are not notable, his albums were released independently, and I can't find any major chart listings/awards. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I also suspect that the page creator (Mediaforthemasses) may be associated with Beckner, such as his agent or PR person. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to

    Dreamcatcher (band). No prejudice against restoring article if sufficient coverage can be found to warrant it. A Traintalk 12:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Fall Asleep In the Mirror (Dreamcatcher album)

    Fall Asleep In the Mirror (Dreamcatcher album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
    )
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Dreamcatcher (band) a few hours ago by Explicit and was proposed for deletion on 26 December by Boleyn. I haven't looked for sources much, though there is an English-language review which may or may not have had editorial oversight. The Korean Wikipedia article has no sources, though there are probably some Korean-language reviews out there. Jc86035 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment KpopBoy, if you disagree with a page being turned it a redirect, challenge it, don't create another article the same at a different title, that's disruptive and confusing. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Move and/or redirect - Move to
      Dreamcatcher (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    William Tempest

    William Tempest (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)

    Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

    WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No sweat. If you have changed your mind, you could withdraw the AfD.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The refs in the article don't support notability so I can see why this is at AFD. The refs provided above are better but still look on the weak side so i'm leaning to delete but will reserve judgement as better refs might be forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:04, 29 December 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. ansh666 06:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Alina Padikkal

    Alina Padikkal (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. Non of the articles listed as reference or in google search go even an inch towards notability  — comment added by

    talk • contribs) 10:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I would like to note that the "sources" given by Arsh 18 consists mainly of trivial interveiw with the subject in question. Also the mention at Bharya (TV series) is unsourced .Most of the coverage the actress has received seems to be from fan mags and a few interviews from newspapers — comment added by
    talk 🎄 contribs🎆 09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Keep: Finding her funny bone on tv, Anchor-actor Alina Padikkal on her journey & Romance is not my cup of tea, I love action more: Alina Padikkil ; these articles from the most valued and taken news websites has proven that the actress is more notable to be encyclopedic. --Arsh 18 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have any idea about Indian TV, but Bharya (TV series) suggests she is notable. She seems to be similarly notable as Ronson Vincent. Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rune Husk

    Rune Husk (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)

    Minimal coverage, fails

    missfortune 03:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 03:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    1. https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/22805-rune-husk-ep/
    2. https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/of-montreal-unveil-surprise-rune-husk-ep-stream-download/
    3. https://news.avclub.com/of-montreal-releases-new-ep-with-uncharacteristically-l-1798256277
    4. https://www.axs.com/of-montreal-drop-surprise-ep-rune-husk-113000
    5. https://www.stereogum.com/1919718/stream-of-montreal-rune-husk-ep/music/album-stream/
    6. https://exclaim.ca/music/article/of_montreal_deliver_surprise_rune_husk_ep
    Enough to meet the
    WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The coverage isn't stellar, but I don't see a benefit from deletion, and the article could be expanded a little using the available sources. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so the question is whether to merge this content to

    Donald Trump on social media or keep it separate. But we don't have consensus about this either. The merger discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 12:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    List of nicknames used by Donald Trump

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

    Listing the nicknames of people Donald Trump assigns them on Twitter is trivial at best.

    Talk · Contributions 08:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some evidence for a GNG Keep: "Trump's nicknames for rivals, from 'Rocket Man' to 'Pocahontas,'" Fox News. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "It's not just 'Rocket Man.' Trump has long history of nicknaming his foes," USA Today. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "The running list of President Trump’s nicknames for political rivals," New York Daily News. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "From 'Sleepy Eyes' to 'Rocket Man', the list of nicknames Trump has invented," Singapore Straits Times. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "Presidential name-calling: What 'Little Marco' has to do with 'Rocket Man' (and nuclear weapons)," CNN. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "Did Trump nickname people in school, too?," NBC (video). Carrite (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "Trump's nicknames for rivals, from 'Rocket Man' to 'Crooked Hillary.'" TownHall.com. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "No, Donald Trump Is Not Good at Nicknames," Slate.com. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "An illustrated guide to the weird names Trump called his rivals," Revelist.com. Carrite (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And "'Crooked Hillary,' 'Lyin' Ted Cruz': How Donald Trump Picks His Disparaging Nicknames for the Other Election Players," People magazine. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 03:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dana Gaier

    Dana Gaier (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)

    DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Bit part/voice actor in animations. No in-depth sources in mainstream media. Fails

    WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, original PROD rationale was incorrect, there are a number of mainstream sources on the page, not all film credits are from animations, either. I would say it passes point 1 of
      WP:NACTOR in part, the multiple films however is an issue, which I am looking to resolve. Dana has recently been on stage but I'm struggling to find any sources. Nightfury 09:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete only one significant role, and that is as a voice actress, which just does not bring the same level of attention to the performer as live roles do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hmmm. I guess one could make the argument that she has "only one significant role, and that is as a voice actress", but it's both blatantly not true and it's a featured role in the
      Despicable Me (franchise), described as "the highest-grossing animated film franchise in box office history, and the 12th highest-grossing film franchise of all time." Again, the rush to deletionism leads editors to arrogate the role of deciding that notability is based on what they think is unimportatnt. Just because I'm uninterested in country music and have decided that being a country music performer "does not bring the same level of attention to the performer" of other forms of music (the ones I like, of course) would be a piss-poor argument for deletion of an article about a country music performer and it's equally invalid here as an excuse for deletion. The claim for notability is strong and the sources here and those available elsewhere establish that claim. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per rationale of Alansohn. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I'm not convinced being in multiple films in
      π, ν) 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to

    WP:ATD-R) and since the subject is (long?) dead there are no BLP concerns from keeping the article history intact. A Traintalk 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sholem Gutnick

    Sholem Gutnick (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)

    Sources in article are passing mentions. BEFORE doesn't bring much better (a few more passing mentions, in particular regarding his brother/sons). Heading a beth-din by self-appointment does not seem sufficient for

    WP:JUDGE. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.

    Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Nathaniel Tilton

    Nathaniel Tilton (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)

    Notability issue, As most reference are from Wikipedia itself and none of them written about subject in depth. ·•·1997kB 03:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 09:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 09:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete we need sources about a subject, not ones by them, and the former is lacking on Tilton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sources in the article are about the person. [60] is an interview. [61] is a short biography. There are a few others that count as reasonable reliable sources that are fairly in-depth and independent. Seems above the bar. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep References 4, 6, 7, and 10 are independent RS discussing the subject in significant depth. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- both sources offered above are interviews and are not suitable for establishing notability:
    • Before he knew it. Tilton had perfected an impressive (!) blackjack strategy that was working quite well for him.
    “Necessity is the mother of invention, and the result was the creation of a virtually undetectable system, something never before documented,” he said. This discovery prompted him to write the book, “The Blackjack Life.”
    The coverage is clearly PR-driven and
    WP:SPIP, not independent of the subject. Sources in the article is of the same quality: "Blackjack ace from Newburyport turns to financial planning". Newburyportnews.com. Etc. Basically, promotional 'cruft on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The sources about him in reliable and verifiable sources establish his notability as a blackjack player / author. There are some crappy, irrelevant and promotional sourcing, but that's an issue for cleanup not an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, of the "sources" presented here as being the best, one is a primary source, and the other is pretty obvious marketing fluff. Neither are useful in demonstrating that this individual meets the
      WP:GNG. I don't see much better in the sources used in the article, which are either not independent of the subject, or in niche publications that look to have somewhat dubious reliability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to List of shopping malls in Malaysia. Sandstein 12:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of shopping malls in Klang Valley

    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 non-notable list of shopping malls. Fails WP: NOTDIR. Vnonymous (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:58, 29 December 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 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sastika Rajendran

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

    None of the source prove notability. ─ 1997kB 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 29 December 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 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Skygge

    Skygge (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)

    speedy declined because 'they are signed to a notable label', in this case an only possibly notable offshoot of a conglomerate. A horrible bunch of promotional fluff about a band tat barely exist, which is why I don't think they are notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 15:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 15:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't think you need to be able to read French,
    WP:PROMO, with lots of peacock language, such as a total misuse of the word "breakthrough". Richard3120 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- does not meet
      WP:NBAND and significant RS coverage not found. Just a bunch of promo 'cruft; belongs on the band's Facebook page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

    Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    John Thomaides

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

    fails

    WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    San Marcos has made national headlines numerous times this year and is one of two small cities in Texas whose mayor has signed the climate mayors. Now more than ever our politicians need to be accessible. I believe through edits this page can pass the guidelines through non promotion and notability. -kmo26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmo26 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • If that is the case, Kmo26, please indicate what sources are available to add to this article so it can meet notability. And what is a climate mayor? John from Idegon (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]


    http://climatemayors.org Climate Mayors are the only leadership in our country who have collectively vowed to stand with the world and combat up against climate change. Happy Holidays to you, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmo26 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete San Marcos may be a notable place, but that does not mean its mayor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to San Marcos, Texas for now, as there is currently no section on local government there.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete San Marcos is not a large enough town that its mayors are generally notable. I see no reason to merge the mayor's biography to the article on
      π, ν) 18:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

    Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Daniel Guerrero

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

    fails

    WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to

    Spartaz Humbug! 05:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Rao Surtan Singh

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

    Delete: It relies entirely on only one source, which is a website and websites are not reliable sources in historical articles. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 07:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Yes, you can check it too. It just lists a list of rulers of Bundi, without ever citing a historical book or any scholarly work. You can find the source on the article's page. Besides, websites can provide as secondary sources for an article, but when it relies entirely on one source, a website, then it can be deleted. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment A relatively minor ruler in 16th century India is going to be hard to source. That he is mentioned at all speaks volumes. We need to examine the website in particular. IT may or may not be written by someone knowledgeable. It feels like it was taken from an old printed source. If so, that would suffice for me. We need to search for more sources. It might wind up that we need to merge this into a List of rulers of Bundi. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He was the rules of an indepent state. As long as his existence is verifiable we should keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is indeed notable, but it relies on only one, unreliable source and we cannot just assume that it is from an old printed source, either delete or redirect to

    WP:HSC
    for more information on citing historical articles. After conducting research on Rao Surtan, I found some websites in which he is mentioned(http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaRajputanaBundi.htm) but none of them ever give a source to where did they get this information. Most of the sites where he is mentioned are mirror sites of Wikipedia.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That being the case, the thing to do is to add a "refimprove"" tag and contact Wikiproject India to see if they can help with sourcing. Perhaps speedy keep as nominator says subject is notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Johnpacklambert. We need to dig into the paper sources and find better sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check the article, you will see that it has had a refimprove tag since March 2014, but no references have been added.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    After a detailed analysis of the website(http://members.iinet.net.au/~royalty/ips/b/bundi.html), I found it does list some books as sources, but they do not cite Rao Surtan. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what's the final desicion? I've seen that the discussion has been inactive for 2 days. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hagoromo's Susanoo: Yeah, about that. Deletion discussions run at least seven days. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to
      π, ν) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    3D Builder

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

    Fails

    talk) 05:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 06:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete - I expected that software built-in to Windows would clearly be notable, but can't find significant coverage, and [65] suggests it is being removed.
      π, ν) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert Whytall

    Albert Whytall (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)

    Biography of a politician whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes

    WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold a notable office to get a Wikipedia article because of politics per se, and otherwise he has to have preexisting notability for some other reason. But the only other potential notability claim here is that he was the chairman of the horticultural committee for a smalltown Rotary Club, which is in no sense whatsoever a reason why somebody would qualify for an encyclopedia article either -- and the only sources here are a census transcript on a genealogy site, and a glancing namecheck of his existence as chairman of the horticultural committee in a 75th anniversary overview of the entire Rotary chapter. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, offers an actual reason why he would warrant an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete An unelected candidate who fails our notability guideline for politicians. As Bearcat correctly notes, no other plausible claim of notability is made. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delte failed candidates for public office are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nomination says it all..PKT(alk) 23:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to

    The Voice (U.S. season 10). Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Adam Wakefield

    Adam Wakefield (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)

    Poorly sourced article about a musician, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant on a reality show. As always, this is not a claim of notability in and of itself -- a non-winning contestant can still get a Wikipedia article by actually passing

    blogs, except for a single reliable source which contains no information about the subject at all, but rather is here to support the tangential fact that Nashville is called the country music capital of the world -- which is entirely irrelevant to Wakefield's notability. As always, no prejudice against recreation if and when his notability claim and sourceability actually clear the bar, but nothing here is enough as of right now -- we are not a promotional platform for aspiring future stars, but an encyclopedia about those who've already made it. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete and potentially merge some of the material. Will move it to the creators user page. Let me know if you wish the preexisting text. Have added a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    SaveCRS

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

    Fails notability criterion. This organization has not received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. The few sources that speak on this organization are local, with one regional example. Additionally this entire article seems to be written and maintained by a member of this organizations board of directors that has cited their own documents. Criticality Incident (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    KEEP - I am the author of this article. There are five independent sources for six of the ten references for this article. Those sources include the major radio and print outlets in the region in which Camp Rising Sun operates (two newspapers and one radio station), and the independent Charity Navigator which reflects the organization's valid 501c3 status. Most importantly the New York Times, a globally recognized news source, covered the situation in depth and fairly, and recognized the existence and role of SaveCRS. Documents from Camp Rising Sun's own website have been included to provide a complete and balanced portrayal of the facts and history.

    This wiki article has far more information and independent sourcing than many nonprofit wiki pages.

    Lastly the Wiki editor who suggested deletion is an alumnus of Camp Rising Sun who has edited no wiki pages except for Camp Rising Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Criticality_Incident and the suggestion for deletion is politically motivated.Rsarlls (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete (possibly with selective merge into Camp Rising Sun (New York)) - There isn't evidence of encyclopedic notability for this organization, other than material that relates to the camp and thus can be covered on the camp page. I make no opinion on whether the camp page is notable (since it's not up for AfD) but if this camp-related non-profit has any notability at all, it's in relation to the camp and can be covered on the camp's page. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Redirect and merge to Camp Rising Sun (New York). The New York Times article discusses this group only in the context of longer coverage of the camp, its history, its alumni and its financial crisis. Charity Navigator listings do not confer notability. The motivations of the nominator are not relevant if their reasoning is otherwise sound. This article fails WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (Perhaps merge some of the article with the section on financial difficulties in Camp Rising Sun (New York).) The newspapers are local, not regional, and I agree with Cullen328 that the NYT coverage is in the context of their coverage of the camp itself. Yes, I came out of lurking to work on the camp rising sun page, but almost exclusively to delete sections without npov (there were times when the article looked like it came straight out of a brochure) and to delete attacks on the board members. The fact that other articles on non-profits have even less attention from independent secondary sources is a sign that those articles should also be put up for deletion, not a sign that we should add to the pile. Criticality Incident (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP - SaveCRS is a legitimate spin out from the CRS LAJF community and should enjoy notability no different than that of the Protestants or splintered off political groups. Attempting to silence hundreds of dissenting voices has not, and will never work to resolves any differences. Here is an example of a group that was born out of similar circumstances, albeit on a larger scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Woman_Suffrage_Association. An even more recent and relevant example of groups splintering off as a result of an organization's financial missteps can be found on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests#Free_Cooper_Union, which is separate from the main Cooper Union page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union. Are we going to start deleting and/or merging pages of every organization in history that has branched, spun, or otherwise splintered off from an established or larger group? TigerJackson (talk) 14:40, 30 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lars Helgeson

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

    Does not satisfy

    general notability. Most of the references are not independent. Google search turns up nothing that has been independently written about him, but the usual vanity hits of what he and GreenRope have written. (Google search also finds another Lars Helgeson, but they are clearly different people.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:08, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Koby Inc

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

    Spam article changed to a redirect then reverted from redirect multiple times by COI editor (see tag). No evidence in reliable sources this is a notable company or notable person fails

    WP:OR. The references should be removed as spam, but then there would be no references. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:06, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Kealing

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

    fails

    WP:NACTOR John from Idegon (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 04:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I made a bad call here. Re-closing as delete. There was essentially only one user vying for a keep while three others argued for deletion. It is irregular at best to change the decision after this amount of time has passed. I apologize. Killiondude (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zak Carr

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

    Does not seem to meet notability criteria Kevin McE (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are better, but he still does not meet the criteria on
    WP:NCYCLING. —FormalDude(talk) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You seem to be arguing that because he does not meet WP:NCYCLING (which strictly speaking and as far as I've been able to determine, is true, albeit by a margin of literally seconds), he is automatically ineligible for inclusion. That's not how WP:NCYCLING or other subject-specific inclusion criteria work. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy 
    routine traffic fatality but as the death of a notable athlete, and c) the available web sources indicate that there's likely additional coverage available in print archives. In short, it doesn't matter if he doesn't meet WP:NCYCLING because the sources show that he meets WP:GNG. Υπογράφω (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I really don't think that this does meet GNG. Local newspaper items are not generally considered sufficient, the reports on his death are featured as a case of driver asleep at the wheel rather than victim-centered, and if even the very small circulation national special interest publication only gives 3 lines to the national record, we are talking very niche. The lack of any real biographical info suggests that the press may have considered his results worth reporting, but not himself highly noteworthy. But Wikipedia is not a repository of specialist event results in national level events in minority sports. Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it proves your points at all, the sources do not prove he was covered for his cycling achievements by general media. They are not from independent websites. The ones from independent websites all only cover his death. —FormalDude(talk) 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete.

    WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Raider Klan

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

    Fails

    WP:MUSICBIO. Except for this and this (which reads like a press release), there is almost nothing published about Raider Klan--except for trivial Soundcloud stuff--to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans

    List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:CFORK of two barely-related articles (Terrorism in the United States and List of assassinations#United_States). No need for a combined list. ansh666 01:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ansh666 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh666 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh666 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. This could possibly have been adjudged a "keep", but the bottom line is that there is not sufficient consensus to delete this article. Discussion as to an appropriate move or merge can continue on the article's talk page. A Traintalk 07:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Trump nominees who have withdrawn

    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 article seems to have no encyclopdeic value, in addition to maybe being a violation of

    WP:NPOV. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick response is that OR is for article content not whether or not to have an article. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further (though relatively shallow) digging, most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions. I'm sorry if I appear self-righteous, but I think calling OSE to be just as big a non-solution: This can't exist till everything else that probably should exist exists. As for NPOV, the facts are that Trump nominated people for a position, and they withdrew. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions." -- that does not sound either reliably sourced or genuinely investigative in nature. What's more, such a list is pointless, partisan, and divisive. Quis separabit? 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - As pointed out above by Rhadow, the unusually high number of withdrawn nominations is based on observations in secondary sources and is not OR. The fact that other pages don't exist is not a good reason to delete this page. Not every presidency is the same or has the same issues. It's not unprofessional or political to simply create pages for notable events supported by secondary sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- This discussion has turned personal and partisan. There are plenty of other places to pursue it on the web, but not on an article talk page. Arguments based on
      WP:CRYSTAL are fine. Please leave unprofessional, self-righteous, pointless, partisan, and divisive out of the conversation. If you wish to to add to the article that the current administration has been extraordinarily successful at placing appeals court nominees, that's fine. That's a fact. Rhadow (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Move. Honestly, this just doesn't need to be its own article. Moving to Political appointments by Donald Trump#Announced positions from which candidates have withdrawn seems like a perfectly fine solution to me for all the reasons listed here. The fact are (1) this does not need to be its own article as they don't exist for other presidential administrations, (2) the Trump Administration for whatever reason (even if it's coincidental) has had an above average number of officials withdraw their nominations, and (3) this content could be better served to readers within the context of the article on political appointments of the administration in general. We have an article on the spooky similarities between JFK and Lincoln, so I am confident that a simple move is all we need here. Thank you all for the discussion, and I hope to receive your feedback. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Taiwan Film Institute

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

    No evidence of notability, and all but one source is from the organisation's own website. —FormalDude(talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I have added 13 references of source, added more content in the article. Chongkian (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Ammarpad: All of the current sources were added after I had nominated for deletion. See here. —FormalDude(talk) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why
    WP:BEFORE is recommend. If you had properly followed the process you are the one who would've found the sources and add. Nominating for AfD usually is the last resort after search fails to bring up any meaninful source or no evidence that sources can be found. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:33, 31 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ENI Corporate University

    ENI Corporate University (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 corporate entity. Viennese Waltz 15:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to delete per KECoffman. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete very non notable and hardly possible search term. Also if redirect is later found to be useful it can be created with only 1 revision. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Eni neither page is prohibitively large, agree that there isn't enough here for a standalone page. --J04n(talk page) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is basically a corporate training department not a "university". There's nothing to merge, as the article does not cite any sources and nor does it contain any meaningful encyclopedic prose. The entire article is pretty much this:
    • ...founded in 2001 through the merger of all the training and education departments of the group. Eni Corporate University mainly shares the goals of the typical Corporate university, and in addition it is responsible for recruitment.
    This could be said of any corporate training department. A redirect is pointless; since typing in Eni would bring the reader to the page of the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unreferenced and no secondary references found. I don't believe it attempts to issue any academic credentials, merely being an internal training division with a fancy name. [75] suggests one of its divisions might accept students and offer a degree, but without at least one secondary reference to that effect this can't be kept.
      π, ν) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus among registered editors that the subject's many quotes to do not constitute in-depth coverage of the subject. A Traintalk 07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cameron Howe

    Cameron Howe (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 individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Cameron Howe is a Melbourne-based journalist who regularly works with larger media outlets including, Fairfax and News Limited newspapers, in addition to writing for a number of independent publications. This site should not be deleted for the above reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.26.130 (talk) — 121.214.26.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment - please demonstrate how the article meets the criteria in
      WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment - There is no cyberbulling here and your comment only shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Please see
      WP:AGF before responding to anyone's comments. reddogsix (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment - Being quoted is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please show how the article meets
      WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    WP:AADD
    and actually cite some policies, sources, and attempts to locate sources in their arguments.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per Wikipedia:Notability (people) "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" The sources in the article meet this criteria. Subuey (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-Lets be accurate, the full quote is, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". The coverage fails to support
      notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Delete as there are no actual sources discussing the subject himself, only a scant handful of unimportant local sources that either mention him in passing or are written by him. TheValeyard (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The coverage is of state significance on a host of political issues that could determine the result of the next state election in 2018, not to mention that the Mordialloc Chronicle which he writes for has received a capital injection. The Chronicle Newspaper Group is challenging News Corp's Leader newspaper group with the intention of having 55 newspaper by the end of 2018. He currently writes for 3 newspapers and again regularly commentates on issues of state political significance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.108.231 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — 1.144.108.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Just to add. He is a media source quoted in national newspapers owned by Fairfax Media - The Age, Bendigo Advertiser, etc and News Corp - The Herald Sun, Leader, The Daily Telegraph etc. Also referred to in a press release by a notable political in state government and had his views read out in Parliament — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.108.231 (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete There is no in-depth coverage about the subject from independent reliable sources. Most are just articles written by the subject of the BLP does not pass
      WP:JOURNALIST. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment - Quotes are neither in-depth nor non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk)}
    • Show a page that supports that as being trivial. Subuey (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about just common sense? reddogsix (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are bound to be differences of opinion, but policy does not show that these are trivial. Subuey (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete there's no claim that he meets any SNG (including
      π, ν) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jumanji (video game)

    Jumanji (video game) (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 redirected to Jumanji the movie by another user. I figured it was worth debating instead. Coin945 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no coverage in reliable sources. Nothing indicates this game achieved any kind of notoriety. I tried several different searches, under varying search terms, and used the "newspapers" search. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2012. So, there has been plenty of time to gather reliable sources and there aren't any in the "references" section. Fails
      WP:NWEB - this topic does not merit a standalone article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Delete I couldn't find any references for this. Not sure it meets GNG. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ikando

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

    subject is not notable Johnathlon (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    missfortune 02:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_December_29&oldid=1142619444"