Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 30

Lene Brøndum

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

Delete: as

non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 00:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has won
WP:ANYBIO. PriceDL (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The awards she won are notable according to Wikipedia as we have articles on those awards. If we are to be consistent, we should keep the article. She has been in many films too.Knox490 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won a Guldbagge Award and appeared in multiple films. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No plausible basis for claiming non-notability: flies past notability guidelines on any metric. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd hate to pile on to the Keep !votes here, perhaps nom would expand on their nomination? It does seems a lot like a JNN nomination. Sam Sailor 00:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets
WP:ANYBIO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:48, 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. ansh 666 02:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kehler

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

To begin with this page is a biography of a living person containing no reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source, and it is meant to be a comprehensive listing of all actors appearing in film, at least films produced within the Hollywood system and some other similar high budget film making systems, which Wikipedia does not seek to be. Wikipedia requires "multiple significant roles in notable films", or if no significant roles, than the actor has been cited as a major contributor as a character actor. What I was able to find was mainly things like an interview on a local news website done with him because he was in town for a convention, nothing that rose to the level of substantial 3rd party coverage in reliable sources, which is what we need for the general notability guideline, and he does not fit any notability criteria for actors. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass
talk) 22:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: A small number of minor extra roles is not a notable actor. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 00:59, 7 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) 19:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Alexenburg

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

Speedy declined. Article has been around for a while but there is no notability that I can see. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – imdb suggests she's only ever had trivial roles. PriceDL (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a BLP lacking any reliable sources. Even if that were not the case, she seems to never had a significant role. Her role in "There's something about Mary" is not even one of 18 listed in the cast section of the Wikipedia article on that film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Add to my reasons that there seem to be no other reliable sources. IMDb seems to be it.Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources that I could find, since IMDb is generally not accepted as such. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and NACtor. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing
WP:NACTOR; a few years ago this would've been speedied as A7, but I guess things have evolved since then. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:54, 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) 19:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Williams Jr.

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

Appears to fail

WP:NHOOPS by only playing in a low level pro team and likely only because he is a local KC-area player. Yosemiter (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Telling that he is slated to play in a league that falls below the NBA G League on the prominence scale. Rikster2 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I was being optimistic, it would be
too soon but this player would be lucky enough to participate in the G-league, let alone a notable professional league.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete TooSoon, GNG and the SNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:02, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Championship

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

Non-notable entertainment event with no independent

WP:N. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep This does have independent
WP:RS from cagematch.net Archived 2012-07-03 at archive.today. It also meets the criteria on WP:NEVENT. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Cagematch is not significant independent coverage. It is a wrestling database with no criteria for inclusion. It can be used to source an article, but not to prove its notability. Nikki♥311 03:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've convinced me more. But it does seem like it would could be

WP:LASTING because it creates events and champions. It is on an international stage as well. —Formal Dude^(talk) 12:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The promotion itself is struggling to prove notability, and failed a AfD of its own. The championship, doesn't meet GNG due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Cagematch is a database, and can only be used to prove match results, and not notability. It's also quite clearly been made despite being asked not to on the main page. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is a violation of Talk:Defiant Wrestling#Stubbed guidelines which were spelled out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling resulted in stubify. - Galatz ^Talk 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to a redirect with full protection until notoriety can be proven Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Identical content was originally at trial on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling; the parent article got stubbed for notability troubles. Cagematch includes data on everything wrestling related and cannot prove notability.LM2000 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Cheers,
talk) 22:29, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Hardcore Championship

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

Non-notable entertainment event with no independent coverage from outside the business, serving only as promotion for defiant Wrestling Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me the article is notable. TheCorageone1 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NoteThis user created the article - Galatz ^Talk 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

(talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is a violation of Talk:Defiant Wrestling#Stubbed guidelines which were spelled out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling resulted in stubify. - Galatz ^Talk 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect with full protection or speedy delete. No substantial merge! There is no valid article here. This is just fancruft. A redirect is harmless so long as it stays a redirect this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Changed to a redirect with full protection until notoriety can be proven Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Identical content was originally at trial on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling; the parent article got stubbed for notability troubles.LM2000 (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Cheers,
talk) 22:30, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Women's Championship

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

Non-notable entertainment event, with no citations to any independent

WP:RS, serving only as promotion for Defiant Wrestling. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was Speedy Delete as CSD G4. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me the article is notable. TheCorageone1 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NoteThis user created the article - Galatz ^Talk 00:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is a violation of Talk:Defiant Wrestling#Stubbed guidelines which were spelled out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling resulted in stubify. - Galatz ^Talk 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect with full protection or speedy delete. No substantial merge! There is no valid article here. This is just fancruft. A redirect is harmless so long as it stays a redirect this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete was asked nicely on page not to create any offshoot articles until notoriety was shown on Defiant Wrestling after it's own AfD. Created anyway, and doesn't reach WP:GnG regardless. If a redirect is created, we need full page protection to stop this being created again. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Identical content was originally at trial on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling; the parent article got stubbed for notability troubles.LM2000 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claimed notability is not supported by independent
talk) 22:32, 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.

Milan Kordestani

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

An article on the same person was deleted less than a month ago here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Kordestani. The subject does not appear to be notable as an equestrian just yet; the awards are "runner up" and similar. The sourcing is passing mentions and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably could have been speedied as a recreation of a deleted article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the updated information that is now on the page it is no longer solely discussing his merits as an equestrian.antditto (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— antditto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete non-notable person, the article reads like an ad for the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are significant sources on him and links providing references to various news outlets. The wording may just needs to be reworded so that it doesn't appear like a promotion. Otherwise, he is notable and complies with
WP:ANYBIO. --2601:280:8200:F1:132:58E:2B82:5AC (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

— 2601:280:8200:F1:132:58E:2B82:5AC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment -- the article is currently tagged as G4. Given rapid recreation and SPA accounts above, I recommend salting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Gonzales

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

Fails

WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Detele as per nomination. Cheers,
talk) 22:40, 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) 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risë Norman

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

I don't think coverage of this individual meets the criteria of

WP:GNG. References are press releases, blogs (where she's only mentioned), a wedding announcement, and the firm's own site. The Financial Times article requires a subscription (and I can't find the article through my subscription), but from the title it seems like it's not strictly about her. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete a fairly successful business lawyer, but nothing that rieses to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Agree, successful attorney. But "partner" is not a WP claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal success does not overcome GNG Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 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 speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. Niederhauser

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

Fails

WP:GNG. --Michael White^T·C 21:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a state legislator, the subject passes
WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

keep Pases Politican and I think it passes the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the
WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep President of the
WP:NPOL. Trackinfo (talk) 04:42, 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. Seeing as all the opposition to deletion appears to be from socks... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurinder Bhatti

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

Declined speedy. There is one minor mention of him in an article in the Hindu, but not a huge amount else. His company might actually be notable, but obviously

WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

Delete Vanity article created to support subject's immigration business. Lacks support to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should not be Deleted, Gurinder Bhatti is a very famous person and there are more articles about him, and many people follow him he have huge following on social Media This person article should be approved by wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suma9lm (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC) — Suma9lm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock.[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the promotional text in the article can't hide the fact that this is not a notable person. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above. MT Train^Discuss 15:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page is a proper one and good to stay in wikipedia, Gurinder Bhatti is quit popular to be in wikipedia page sandesh20p (talk) 03:42, 06 Janauary 2018 (UTC)— sandesh20kp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock.

Don't Delete This person is very famous this page should not be deleted Lavanya789u (talk) 09:44, 06 Janauary 2018 (UTC)— Lavanya789u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock.

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

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

The result was keep per

WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 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.

Richard Rogers (psychologist)

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

Insufficient notability. Daask (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep h-index of 67, which is definitely high enough to meet
(talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep per
WP:PROF — passes on criterion 1 at least, and probably also 2 and 5. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- in addition to
WP:AUTHOR with widely held books, which appear to be standard textbooks. For example, Fundamentals of Forensic Practice Mental Health and Criminal Law by Richard Rogers; Daniel W Shuman, is held by 650 libraries. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, could use expansion, but the publishers' of his books are known companies and has just enough to pass GNG. Kierzek (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per
WP:PROF - h-index and citation count make this obvious without even assessing anything else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice to creation of a redirect or dab page as Uanfala suggests. ansh 666 02:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absent referent

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

Googling "useful idea" produces many hits. So why don't we have a Wikipedia article about it, with sections In agriculture, In biology, In chemistry...? The reason is that the term just means "an idea that happens to be useful". Beyond that, nothing coherent can be said about it in general, and any attempt at an article will produce a haphazard mishmosh of unrelated stuff. Same story for "absent referent", a term that also has many ghits, but for which the only commonality in the various uses is the meaning of "a referent that happens to be not physically present". Much if not most of the article's content is original research, mostly in the form of

synthesis. I've never seen the term used in a mathematical text. --Lambiam 19:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deaf. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the basic GNG, and smells alot like OR to me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Yes, the phrase "absent referent" can be used in any odd context to refer to a referent that is not present, but there does additionally exist a well-defined concept known by that name. I don't know if it's notable enough to ultimately have its own article. The one we currently have is absolutely hopeless, so we should at least turn it into a redirect to the article about the apparent originator of the term Carol J. Adams, where the concept is explained. An alternative would be to create a dab page listing that, as well as pointing to Failure to refer, which I reckon is the topic most relevantly representing the more generic uses of the phrase. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As best as I can tell, the supposed connection to mathematics is
WP:SYNTH. Accordingly, I cut it out. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Complicated. First, I think Xor's removal was totally justified, so I'm just looking at what's left now. Unafala brought up an interesting point about use of the term by Carol Adams. But apparently she didn't coin this term; in her own words, she "politicized" it. I honestly don't know if it would merit an article on its own (my guess is no, but I could be wrong), but there's nothing in there now, so it's kind of moot for the time being. A redirect wouldn't be terrible, but I'd say wait until the article gets deleted (if it gets deleted) before making a new one. The stuff about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is bunk. That just leaves the bit about ASL. It does actually seem to be a technical term used in talking about sign language. Again, I don't know if it warrants its own article though, or if it could redirect to something else. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as ASL is concerned, the notion of absent referent is only meaningful in the context of indexing (pointing), a form of signing that is not even mentioned on Wikipedia. While interesting, the handling of space-absent versus space-present referents by indexing is at a deeper level of detail than the current treatment of other aspects of ASL. --Lambiam 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I'd probably just say go ahead and delete, and if anyone wanted to take a stab at the Carol Adams usage, they'd certainly be welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 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 speedy Deleted as A7, G11. On December 30, 2017

(non-admin closure) ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

V A ENERGY

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

This appears at first glance to be an exemplary organisation. However, the references are clearly press releases and interviews with nothing about all the successes that should surely have followed such investment. It claims to have been around since 2011 but provides no evidence of the success of any of its many projects. To benefit applicants need to be a "member of V Adept Energy", yet nowhere is it clear how to become a member. This has all the hallmarks of a scam and the lack of refs does little to dispel that idea. It fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonprofit that hasn't gained much traction, or media attention. WP is not the place for promotion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Atsme. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources like The Hindu are provided, so I don't see the scam that @Velella: is talking about. It would be different if the article contained only primary sources, but The Hindu is far from primary.--Biografer (talk) 23:30, 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) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StepStone

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

Delete No indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill company listing. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or marketing. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and

HighKing⁺⁺ 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the company winning any awards or getting multiple, in-depth stories. So I concur with the statement that it is a run of the mill company that lacks notability. I don't see the situation changing either.Knox490 (talk) 01:44, 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) 23:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aries Dimaunahan

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

Fails

WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Daa

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

Fails

WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 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) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Daa

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

Fails

WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 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) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Yuki

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet

WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to passing mentions, tabloid coverage of another performer, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of notable sources and the trajectory of her career suggest that notable sources will not be found to redeem the article. If someone wants to search for sources, be my guest. But I will not be doing so.Knox490 (talk)
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 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) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Shaikh

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

An advertorially toned BLP of a CEO of a nn company. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to passing mentions, routine news about the company,

WP:SPI and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account with three total edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
talk) 19:26, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hughes (basketball)

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

Appears to fail

non-local coverage, such as this KC-based article which the entire depth related to Hughes is "assisted on the bench by Tom Hughes, who coached the Salina Cagerz of the old USBL and most recently coached at Wentworth Military Academy." Yosemiter (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well below the level of notability for basketball coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete- Fails
Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 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. under G6

(non-admin closure) L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Matthew Fergusson-Stewart

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

promotional article for someone whose job is promotion. I tend to look at such articles quite skeptically. There is very little here that indicates any actual notability, and a great deal that indicates a self-indulgent bio, ("Fergusson-Stewart honeymooned on Islay and named his firstborn daughter Islay."--which happens to be where the Scotch he promotes is produced) known to be written by a declared paid editor, who is by training a PR professional .I think this is one more instance that paid editors, declared or undeclared, regardless of their good intentions,are generally not likely to write a NPOV article. The references are PR, and that;s all there is. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a PR-driven page on a PR person, who is moreover 100% non notable. The award listed is extremely minor and also PR-driven. Basically, spam. I was very close to tagging it for SCD as A7 / G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Huff Post article was by a contributor, not staff. I'm not seeing where this BLP passes even minimal GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTPROMO. Article is essentially a PR piece on a non-notable individual with no significant, independent coverage. Kb.au (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. An unremarkable guy doing a worthy but unremarkable job. (He has a remarkable resemblance to
OR, I see no source that mentions it.) Maproom (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Reads like a paid entry in somebody's big book of résumés. – Athaenara ✉ 23:15, 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:GEOLAND - the feature is clearly a section of road (i.e. not natural) and all claims otherwise seem to be unsupported by the references given. ansh 666 03:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Windy Corner, Isle of Man

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

It's time to delete this article which basically duplicates List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Table row Windy Corner. Attempts to #redirect have created disruption. There was consensus to MERGE but that hasn't worked, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously the place passes
WP:GEOLAND, being a named feature. The list is no substitute because that is focussed only a particular race and the content in the list entry is negligible. For reader navigation purposes, the name Windy Corner is far more useful that some complex list title. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

keep per
WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a small corner on a mountain course and is already named as a feature in the main article of the course - List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Table row Windy Corner - just want to make sure participants in this AfD are aware of this fact. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, putting it in a list with a bunch of other stuff does not improve matters for the reader who wants to find out about it. It's best kept simple so that Windy Corner takes the reader to a page about that place, with specific images, coordinates, topography and history, as we have here. If a list is needed, it should be brief, rather than some sprawling and confusing conglomerate. For example, I recently started a page about Hanging Sword Alley. It's not a big place but is notable and has some good history, which I shall be expanding on. Merging this into some gargantuan list of streets in London would not serve the reader so well. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single feature that is only notable as part of the mountain course where consensus said it should be redirected. Even WP:GEOLAND states If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. There are no books, maps, or multiple RS that focus only on this one feature. The sources include it as part of the bigger, more notable topic of the region or the course. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article was disruptively restored earlier today (with an edit summary of "removal of local consensus see BRD: No consensus on redirect, or target of redirect due to synthesis WP:SYN, original research WP:N and non-existent notability WP:N") having been redirected to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Windy Corner as the result of a previous RfC (closed by User:Drmies on 23 February 2015‎), by the same editor who has done so multiple times in the past, against consensus - see its history, and its talk page. Note that User:11thmilestone, who previously kept restoring the page, was blocked as a sock puppet of the editor who made today's restoration. Note also that the page was stable as a redirect from 20 August 2016 until today. Accordingly, it should be redirected again~~, once the current content has been deleted~~. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read comments below, I believe that the history should indeed be kept. I'm also reminded of previous discussions, which showed that the article's claim to notability per
  WP:GEOLAND are bogus. Perhaps what is needed is an administrative injunction on Agljones to refrain from repeating this behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to List_of_named_corners_of_the_Snaefell_Mountain_Course#Windy_Corner per prior consensus. The target section already sufficiently covers the subject, which is not notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per previous RFC and all rational discussion over many years. If I had noticed the editor had restored the article I would have re-re-re-re-re-redirected it to the list-article which I opened, partly to provide reasonable resolution of this . I believe leaving edit history available in the redirect is helpful for future reference, to hold accountable the parties involved when they argue on and on, in the future, as is likely. Please note this diff in which I report that the main force involved had basically lied about what their key source said. They claimed the source established Windy Corner was an area of open moorland. They failed to respond adequately to requests they provide photocopy or other proof of what their sources said. I bought a copy of the main source and found that it absolutely did not say what it was claimed to say. Not to put a fine point on it, but they were caught redhanded in a lie. I similarly disbelieve the same editor's assertions now present in the current version/fabrication of the article. There is no merit to this article; it should be redirected and I don't think this AFD is even necessary. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate User:Andrew Davidson's view that a named feature with lots of coverage should be kept, but they are assuming that information currently in the article is accurate, when it is not. It is twisted rubbish. We need not assume good faith when it is not merited, as here. Here is another diff from AFD on similar article where it was established that claim of Site of Special Scientific Interest was a lie, too, when a different editor got the source. Now this Windy Corner article has a SSSI claim which I expect is false, too.

By the way, when looking at the main contributors contributions to look for this, I see that they have just recently made disruptive move, obviously controversial, of the

Snaefell Mountain Course article, with edit summary claiming that it is not controversial. The sheer volume of shiite in AFDs, Talk pages, as well as put into the articles in mainspace related to Windy Corner and other Isle of Man race-course corners is cumulatively amazing and massively disruptive to Wikipedia. I would contribute evidence if someone would initiate a permanent topic ban from this area for the involved editor. --Doncram (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Preliminary comment. The name is NOT Isle of Man TT Mountain course, and never has been. I have voluntarily abstained from WP for some months, partly due to one hostile editor (elsewhere) and to demonstrate that no admin has any block-threat sanction against me regarding

Keep The article passes
WP:BURDEN.) The editor USER:doncram has also repeatedly vandalised two other other articles with spurious objections, in particular removing any citation mentioning the word "moorland" and replaced a title line for a BRD discussion to avoid BRD process. Despite misunderstanding amongst editors, the editor USER:doncram has also asked Wikipedia to reinstate the Ginger Hall article after it was deleted (see talk page:Windy Corner.) The editor USER:doncram has also used the Request for Closure to prematurely closed down a copyright enquiry in regard to the same List Article (now either archive, suppressed or both) and despite this, Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia is very clear that for copyright in non-US countries has to be observed.
The editor USER:doncram has never historically given an alternative explanation or definition for the heath and heather moorland, despite the numerous references in secondary sources (see talk pages for Windy Corner, Keppel Gate and Brandywell articles) and in this edit uses the term "moorland" [[1]]. The editor USER:doncram has also mentioned a publication and the citation was explained in this edit on the Windy Corner talk page [[2]]. The publication writes on page 81 or page 59 depending on the version;- "...Cross the style and enter the "mountain land"...." Where is this style ? It is actually the most southerly boundary of the area of Slieau Lhoost which was purchased in 1933 as shown in the revised article. It is the same area which is an ASSI as defined by a "SC3781 A portion of the south western slope of Slieau Ree" and the same author writes about "heather and ling" which only grow on acidic moorland soil and is also the same moorland as referred to be in this same edit [[3]]. The report Habit Survey 1991, gives an 'arbitrarily' moorland definition as peat soil being greater than ~~25cm~~ 50cm. The soil depth of peat in this areas is greater than 50cm which qualifies for the definition of "moorland" and in the area of Beinn-y-Phott it is greater than 3 metres.
In regard to other comments it is not clear what the editor is referring too. In the Keppel Gate article a recent publication for 2017 stated that R.O Clark crashed at the ~~"33rd Milestone."~~ For the other article, the 2017 Isle of Man TT Race Regulations clearly states "Isle of Man TT Mountain Circuit" and not "Snaefell Mountain Course." agljones(talk)11:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Drmies Please can you comment on the claims made about you above; specifically i) whether a redirect was the intention of your close of the RfC and ii) your alleged warning to other editors, and its bearing on this AfD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, are you asking me to read through agljones's comments? I may need some more champagne for that. What I was suggesting to Atsme was that an admin (such as me) could consider restoring the RfC-endorsed merge ("merge" automatically involves a redirect...). If I was warning anyone, it would certainly be the editor who made this edit--not Doncram, who on multiple occasions reverted that disruptive reinstatement of all that content. One would think that after being blocked for creating a sock to make just these edits, they'd stop doing that. Anyway, if this AfD somehow closes as "keep" (I would find that strange, given the lack of arguments put forward by Andrew Davidson and Aunva6), ... no I don't see how this will close as "keep". Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as before. It's not a geographic feature, it's just one of many turns on a road racing course. Details about the road and the land nearby doesn't make it worth an article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND and there is far too much topic-specific content to redirect. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tis not. There is no content on the page worth keeping. It is all nonsense; it is false assertions that the corner is an area of moorland etc. It is not. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOLAND says natural features can be notable. This is an area of heathland which is a natural feature and the refs look ok. The RFC closed as no consensus which defaults to keep - the article should not have been redirected. Szzuk (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC was in 2014 and was overridden by the Feb 2015 RfC which was closed as merge by Drmies. The RfC was ignored and the #redirect reverted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my own vote. Szzuk (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The feature is a col which is a geographical feature as described in another disputed publication on page 116. The peat soil is of depth much great than the 'arbitrarily' soil definition of ~~25 cm~~ 50cm depth which makes it a moorland, a geographic feature. The citations in the article for notability define the area prior to the "road racing course" and a motor-cycle scrambles course also existed on the site which is greater than just a "small corner on a mountain course." agljones(talk)19:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the couple good faith editors who have read the page and think it is about a noteworthy geographic feature, could you please you yourself consult and cite any source which says it is an area of open moorland or whatever. It has been debated at length at the talk page and in previous RFC and in long, slow edit war. IMHO it is crap, similar to automatic assertions along similar lines for other Isle of Man racing course stuff over many years. What matters is GNG. Please be specific about what source says what that you believe. Wikipedia is not a valid source, you can't just rely upon this article as the source for what you believe. It is all contended, controversial, fraudulent. :) --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the clarification for other editors, in respect to the comment by edit [4] of 20:43, 30 December 2017 by editor
WP:COMMONNAME. The main article is the now this article "Mountain Course (motorcycle racing)" and has never been the List article. Any editor that has directed or redirected this article to List article has been disruptive. The revised article of edit of 16:47, 30 December 2017 [5] has reverted approximately to the 'status quo' of an open ended set of remarks by the same editor User:Drmies in regard to the edit (RfC) of 18:11, 23 February 2015 [6]. agljones(talk)20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:HOUNDing (I can and will 'walk away'); this latter aspect is, however (here and here) preventing me from correctly top-templating (only to be used with the prior sanction of an admin???). Also articles authored by Agljones using sources not available to the public when autopatrolled (removed by Callanecc at sock-unblock, July 2015). Digest my edit summary, then note the source retro-added in the next change, 6 years after the actual article content. My claims since 2015 (roughly co-incident with the bureaucrat (knowingly) removing CoI content, after repeated attempts by IP addresses in violation of Callanecc's unblock requirement) are not spurious.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

The objections from Editor

Comment Editors would advise that the
WP:V
and editors should not use spurious COI claims on these various talk pages to block discussion, specifically after being given a final warning.

WP:OP) that this section of the original turf road (c 1600) is the same as current A18 Snaefell Mountain Road as the “….small corner….” only dates from 1910/1922 (1933/35) as it is the most extensively modified section of the 'course.' agljones(talk)22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

The 2017 Isle of Man TT Regulations refer to the “COURSE” as the “Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Mountain Circuit.” The 1958 Isle of Man TT Regulations also refer to the “Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Mountain Circuit” and editors would again advise to refer to the appropriate

Comment Again, editors may advise that not to either disrupt or block discussions with “laundry lists” with little or no evidence which may be seen as ‘supermarket shopping.’

WP:N

, as a secondary source independent of the subject for this article.

The term “Snaefell Mountain Course” in the

Windy Corner, Isle of Man has attracted attention over a long period of time in publications due to its connection with the Isle of Man TT races, the Isle of Man TT Mountain Course and as recently as May 2017, again the subject is found in an Isle of Man walking guide.agljones(talk)19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 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.

Ivy Exec

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

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; I'm seeing a lot of self-promotion instead such as this piece by the company CEO: [7]. The article is cited to passing mentions, PR materials, oline directories, and

WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this could be the poster article for promotional and

WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 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.

Commotio (Oxford-based choir)

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

No evidence of notability for this Oxford choir. The references seem to be about demonstrating that individual soloists worked with the choir or sold CDs. Nothing here speaks of notability. Searches reveal nothing better. There are very many choirs in Oxford, many of a high standard, so just being an Oxford choir doesn't make for notability. A little recent COI editing probably hasn't helped. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails

WP:N (music). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Quality Control: Control the Streets Volume 1. ansh 666 02:56, 7 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

She for Keeps

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

No significant coverage for separate article. ─ 1997 kB 16:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails

WP:N (music) ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Quality Control: Control the Streets Volume 1, the song's parent album. There are a few blurbs on the song - [8][9][10] - but I don't think that the coverage is sufficiently in-depth to warrant a standalone article at this time. gongshow talk 23:17, 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.

EarthLab

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

Unreferenced, tagged for cleanup since 2008, I'm not finding much on google, not certain of notability RJFJR (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's certainly in a poor state. The website is now used by a Japanese insurance group; Earthlab.com of Kirkland, Washington is said on Facebook to be an art gallery. It looks to me as if the organisation is now dead, so the question is whether it was notable at the time back in 2007-8 (once notable, always notable). The "Earth Conservation Profile" was launched in 2007 and seems to have made a splash back then which might be notable, but perhaps that makes the article a

WP:COATRACK for the ECP. There are sources to prove it was a nonprofit and to illustrate its activities, but insufficient to show notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails
Rusf10 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not verifiable. I see "Earth Lab"s at University of Colorado and University of Washington which are different. Their own website no longer is functional, there are no references in the article, and I can't tell what this group used to be.
π, ν) 23:04, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Margaret G. Marucci

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

County freeholder does not meet

Rusf10 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 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 keep after improvements to the article. ansh 666 03:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Ruotolo

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

Fails

Rusf10 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while a few country prosecutors are notable (Kym Worthy is a probably example), the coverage of Ruotolo for such is not enough to show notability, and the failed candidacy for the state legislature is clearly not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the refs meet the GNG easily, the failed candidacy as a disqualifier for notability is an example, once again, of the
strawman fallacy. No one is claiming that is why he is notable. --RAN (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The scope and breadth of sources about his role as county prosecutor developing a response to the car-theft epidemic of his era is what establishes his notability. He's not notable per se as a county prosecutor or as a failed politician; he's notable because reliable and verifiable sources document his efforts and successes as prosecutor. Kudos to RAN for his efforts to improve and expand the article, a sharp contrast to do-nothing deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Echo the above to say kudos to RAN. Unscintillating (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY. Unscintillating (talk) 09:38, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Magic

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

Non-notable blog. No significant mentions in other sources PriceDL (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete per
talk) 19:29, 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 speedy keep. as per sources provided, Thanks all.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Jesse Ellis

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

Non notable engineer, Fails GNG –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 13:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable engineer, passing the GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying He passes GNG doesn't mean a thing, Sources would help. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An engineer of national and local importance. Bmcln1 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he was of importance than you'd kindly provide sources, If he's indeed notable then I'm more than happy to close but so far I'm finding nothing on him, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 96-page book about him: Jesse Ellis and the Maidstone Wagons. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable engineer, passing the GNG. Came by a deletion on the Maidstone page. The deleter said he wanted a stub and it was easy to do. If this is deleted- it proves my point- stub creation is not 'easy'. The user has tried his best and provided a full link- that can be expanded to two WP:RSs. A cursory glance at Grace- shows notability, and it is useful to build up the articles on Maidstone's industrial base and get away from the stereotype Garden of England. I would be interested if an experienced boiler make could expand here on his fire-tubes. Notability does depend on sources not the engineers ability. I googled [11] which goes into detail on the Maidstone explosion, and Ellis innovative design of a steam truck allegedly taken up by Foden. http://steamwagon.com/books.htm advertises a R.A.Whitehead book Jesse Ellis and the Maidstone Wagons 84 pages. And then it is said he was a haulage contractor- ie Entrepreneur. Member of the RAC and involved in the abolition of the The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act). ClemRutter (talk) 14:10, 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.

List of Sesame Street crew

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

Pure

WP:LISTCRUFT, None of those in the article are linked and the entire article is unsourced. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be an example of
WP:INDISCRIMINATE —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:47, 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.

Father Ernetti's Chronovisor

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

An ip messed up the nom; gave a rationale of deletion because it is a conspiracy theory book with little more notability than Cumbey's Anti-Christ claim against Solona Seems to fail

WP:NBOOKS, there's no coverage on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss <span- -style="color:#FDB927;">fortune 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

This is a major plot element in Steve White's Gods of Dawn, ISBN 978-1-4814-8257-8.

Delete I cannot believe that this book promoting a FRINGE theory and being the alleged biography related to such is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bizarre book. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.184.16 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.184.16 (talk) 01:09, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Tehreek e Islami

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

Nothing actually. Maybe redirect to

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 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.

Hafiz Akif Saeed

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

No real coverage for him. Fails

WP:GNG. Alternate is to redirect. Störm (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete: Entirely fails to satisfy Wikipedia notability criteria.
talk) 11:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

miss fortune 12:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: disqualified for Wikipedia notability
talk) 19:31, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Elena Ibañez

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

originally written as a paid promotional article with very borderline notability ; the subsequent legal involvement does not make her more notable. (I do admit to a certain grim satisfaction to how the promotionalism turned out,but it's still unfair to have the article) DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 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 00:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I don't think her legal problems pass
Rusf10 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep on balance. I agree it's borderline and the COI notice should remain in place regardless. Deb (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WIkipedia is not a place for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo 'cruft on a non notable person. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 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 Seth Edulji Dinshaw#Family. Any applicable material (i.e. not promotional) can be merged from history. ansh 666 03:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Framroze Edulji Dinshaw

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

Being landowner doesn't mean you are notable. Going in detail of everything from their ventures to philanthropy of their family, he is at least not notable as other two are. No significant coverage to pass

WP:ANYBIO. Started by User talk:Waddington3. Störm (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 11:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 11:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Non-notable individual fails
WP:ANYBIO to have an individual article. Suggested to merge with Seth_Edulji_Dinshaw Hagennos (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete & redirect name only to Seth_Edulji_Dinshaw#Family where the subject is already discussed in sufficient detail. No need to preserve the article history as it's mostly promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 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.

ARY Group

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

I initially thought it is actually

WP:NCORP. No independent coverage found. Störm (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 19:34, 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 redirect to Darwin (operating system)#Derived projects as a reasonable search term. ansh 666 03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNU-Darwin

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a long standing page for what seems to be a non-notable vanity project with no reliable sources to speak of. No coverage anywhere else that I can find except for press releases and an OSNews article written by the guy who started the project, which I assume all count as primary sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Darwin (operating system)#Derivatives section. This article just doesn't seem like it'll ever be anything greater than a stub. Nuke (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What can be merged though? There is nothing here that can be attributed to anything except Primary Sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [12] [13] and [14] in addition to the OS News source you mentioned. —cnzx 21:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Love that second source. "I tried this thing, it didn't work, but it exists." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently being a "good" piece of software is now also a prerequisite for having an article? —cnzx 02:25, 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 00:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Of the links provided above, the first one has very limited coverage, the second one is a blog post and thus probably inadmissible, and the third one is a passing mention which only provides trivial coverage.--greenrd (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and all references primary. Even though it has been suggested to be merged into Darvin lack of references make this a candidate for deletion. Hagennos (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of notable sources and the material in the article itself would appear to indicate that it is a vanity project with limited public support. I don't see further research for sources redeeming the article from it being deleted.Knox490 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article nor a search on Google could bring up any independent sources covering this product in any meaningful way. As the nom states, what info there is online seems to have published by the software creator. Does not seem to meet
WP:NSOFT. Happy to see a redirect if there's an appropriate page to send it to. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment German "Linux Magazin" magazine published solid looking article about GNU-Darwin in 2001/04 issue (monthly column by Georg C. F. Greve): [15]. Other than that, I found only short news (heise.de, pro-linux.de, root.cz etc.). Pavlor (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darwin (operating system)#Other derived projects as this is ultimately a non-Apple version of Darwin and brief mention in the main article is appropriate. Due to the lack of sources, it would be hard to actually merge content from here. Personally I would restrict any description on the main article to 2 sentences or less.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just to clarify. This is not a non-Apple version of Darwin. This is the FreeBSD packaging system (created by someone else) that was ported to run on Darwin. That may or may not work. That doesn't seem to have any support. That doesn't seem to have been updated for years. That doesn't seem to have been worked on in years. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pointed to this in the start. Back in 2011 people are posting to their discussion forum asking for help because ports don't compile and the lead developer is responding with "Development is on hiatus until replacements for the proprietary drivers can be found" "Many of the ports will require much hacking. We are not distributing changes until replacements for the proprietary drivers can be found." and that's pretty much the last genuine activity on the discussion forums (or mailing lists barring spam emails). https://sourceforge.net/p/gnu-darwin/discussion/49372/thread/c448f3b5/ AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:21, 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.

Dream Version

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

Minimal RS coverage exists to fail A7 but I cannot find any coverage that is sufficient to establish notability per

WP:BAND. reddogsix (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some coverage found: Rolling Stone, Radio One Chicago, webzine, The Revue. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 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 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are some reviews of their work, but I don't think that's enough to meet
WP:NBAND is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have not passed any criteria of
WP:BAND; what else can you say about them apart from they exist and have released some music that hasn't even charted. While you could scramble enough sources together to verify the article, being mentioned along side lots of other bands and a couple of reviews hear and there from niche publications (and using volunteers in Spill Magazine's & The Revue's case) is not really significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:04, 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.

Kid Pharaoh

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

Over the top self promotion ffor non

notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award is not major and is not for him. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 10:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 10:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 10:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 10:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Has minor coverage here and here, but maybe not enough to be significant or
WP:V issues. Kb.au (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 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.

Andrei Popescu (businessperson)

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

Sources provided are unconvincing, and a Google search does not give much promise. While most sources provided are better than mere name-checking, they do not make Popescu the primary subject of the article. Not notable. The article creator has suspiciously made a large quantity of

WP:PAID issue as well. !dave 09:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 09:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 10:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 10:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- looks like COI. Fails
Rusf10 (talk) 15:10, 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 speedy deleted by Alex Shih per G11. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Farraj

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

This is an entirely promotional article about a beginning film-maker, apparently written almost entirely by a now-blocked paid editor. t's arguable if it falls with in G5, so I'mm bringing it here. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 09:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. Promotional 'cruft on a nn individual, based off
WP:SPIP sourcing. I requested such, let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 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.

Klook

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

Non notable, promotional,and written by undeclared paid editor.Any one of the three isreason for deletion . The refs are the usual notices about funding--according to NCORP, this alone does not count towards the necessary sources for notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was merge to Morgan Evans (singer). Sandstein 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seems to be press coverage of the deals with Google and Lotte, also of the intended opening of offices in the US, and the Japanese destination expansion. (If it were deleted the redirect should be reinstated.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising, created by an undeclared paid editor in violation of our terms of use. This appears to be exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else ("... not identifiable as advertising to consumers ...", likely to "... mislead consumers into believing [it is] independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself ...") that is considered "deceptive" – and thus illegal – in the United States under rules laid down by the Federal Trade Commission (see discussion here). Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate advertisement of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate illegal advertisement. No objection to re-creation of the previous redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability guideline is abundantly clear that passing the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. It must also must not fail our other policies and guidelines, such as
WP:NOTSPAM, which is a policy. As such, it is excluded from Wikipedia as promotionalism. Notability doesn't matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this is spam and doesn't pass GNG either in my opinion. Even if it does pass GNG in the future,
TNT is the best option to get a decent article about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Agree with nom and above, complete corporate spam, fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I fail to see how anything in the article is promotional. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 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.

I Do (Morgan Evans song)

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

Articles on two trivial websites and ranking on a single national chart does not establish notability per

WP:NSONGS. Hayman30 (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 08:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 08:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 08:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Morgan Evans. Vorbee (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. I believe its peak/information is notable enough to include in the text of Morgan Evans (singer), but not sure every song that charts needs a stub created for it. Ss112 08:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
WP:NSINGLE. Not enough info for a standalone article. Kb.au (talk) 13:33, 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.

Alex Stoddard

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

The subject is a non-notable photographer who has not appeared in many sources. In fact, the sources listed in the article itself are not reliable. These include blogs and random interviews. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 06:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs do not support GNG or ARTIST.104.163.153.162 (talk) 05:36, 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 Speedy Deleted (G4) by RHaworth.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

The DC Cup

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

Infobox and article categorization imply this is intended as a sports rivalry article.

WP:TOOSOON at best. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI, this article is a recreation of an article that was previously deleted at AfD in July 2014, please see here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted above. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article recreated without following proper procedure following prior AfD closure as "Delete". No additional games have been played since 2011, and so the arguments for deletion in 2014 still apply. Cbl62 (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 per procedure
WP:SPEEDY. Article already deleted and no reason given to re-create.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:23, 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.

✉ 14:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Washington–Western Washington football rivalry

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

Same creating editor with same issues. Only one game played in "rivalry" per article. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received coverage in a major newspaper and seems to have been played since 1922 (with over a hundred meetings). Sounder Bruce 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would like to see a bit more coverage, but the Seattle newspapers from the 1920s to 1990s are not readily available on-line. Hopefully, someone has access and can check those sources. As far as the usual objective indicia of rivalries, several are present here: (i) geographic proximity of the schools (this is an intra-state rivalry between schools located 190 miles apart); (ii) the existence of a trophy (the Cascade Cup); (iii) the existence of an official name for the series (Battle in Seattle); (iv) long history dating back to 1922; and (v) frequency of play (over 100 games played on an annual basis, with a timeout for WWII, for almost 90 years).
@UW Dawgs: It appears this AfD was premised on the belief that only one game had been played. Given the fact that the series was played > 100 times, would you consider withdrawing this one? Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong and no. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Sources:
Seattle Times, "Battle in Seattle will be football in a pure form" (2004), "Western vs. Central: No small football rivalry" (2007), "Central, Western renew rivalry in “Battle in Seattle" (2008), "Reveling in rivalry, Northwest Colleges - College Football 2005" (2005), The Bellingham Herald, "Western-Central rivalry now `personal'" (1999), Daily Record "Rivalry! When Central takes on Western, it is no friendly contest" (2003), Yakima Herald-Republic, "College Football -- Central, Western Renew Rivalry" (2001) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Nomination was made on erroneous assumption: "Only one game played in 'rivalry' per article." In fact, this rivalry game was played > 100 times. Also, the series satisfies
WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources -- see sources in article and those found by WikiOriginal-9. Finally, and as noted above, the series satisfies objective criteria of a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This one clearly passes
WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:37, 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.

Marshall–Western Kentucky football rivalry

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

Same editor. 9 games played. No

WP:GNG notability. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 06:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 06:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 06:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that it's the same editor of other similar articles is not a reason to delete. However, that it isn't really a rivalry (certainly not a notable one) is a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a rivalry yet -
WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 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. But the article may merit cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rogge

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

If there were ever a time to say it, it's now: this page is rubbish and a disgrace to WP: (1) no independent sources whatsoever; (2) zero notability; (3) obviously created by subject or someone very close to him; (4) PROMO; (5) lovely page for the family history album Sirlanz 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I must say I am by no means anyone notable, but I love to recognize "valuable" people and document information about them. Since you claim and jump into conclusions that the article is "obviously created by subject or someone very close to him" or that it is a "family history album", I STRONGLY disagree and profess that I have absolutely no relation with, had no idea about or never heard of Michael Rogge. That is, until I recently came to know of some of his works (photographs, videos) on post-WW2 India, especially from some rural areas (which is indeed very rare, and perhaps does not exist outside any privileged British archives maybe) that became very popular in social media during the recent years. Later on, I came to know of his impressive work on South East Asia, Hong Kong and Japan. I also came to know that his works are being used by history/sociology/anthropology students or TV documentaries as primary sources (but mostly unofficially, so difficult to get citations). In fact, the main motivation for this article came from the situation that people who had freely used his work had absolutely no idea about who this person is.

I fully recognize your right to call this "rubbish" and "a disgrace to WP", but I thought senior Wikipedians would respect my personal efforts to record a brief history of a previously unknown person, but a great soul who has contributed remarkably to humanity. Yes it is true that I have not added many primary sources on the only section on his early life that I have added so far; I added what I got first, and could not do further research as I got busy with my own work schedule. Nevertheless, in true Wikipedia spirit, I thought someone else would contribute with additional sources over a sweet time and absolutely do not expect any to kill my efforts like this. I have to state that it is a work in progress (like the majority of Wikipedia articles), I need time, and I hope to complete it in the next few months depending on my availability.

Now, I have two questions to you:

Do you consider only this particular article as "rubbish" and "disgrace to WP" (in its current state), or Mr. Rogge's works also as rubbish and non-notable? If it is the latter (as you may have intended when you said "zero notability"), I would respectfully disagree to your world view and how you consider historical contributions of an individual as valuable or not. FYI I just saw now that Mr. Rogge's YouTube channel (that I had included as a primary reference and which speaks volumes by itself if one looks with an unbiased eye) has over 60,000 subscribers and several videos with million+ views. If you are still not convinced, will this interview on History TV Channel (and associated videos on the Far East) suffice to convince you to give Mr.Rogge "non-zero" (> 0) notability? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0TljCpCUc. If you are still not convinced, I have nothing more to say than a humble request: please do not to jump into conclusions based on your own views, rather please "try" to recognize the worth of this particular old man who has left a lasting legacy to humanity yet remained in private domain for most of his life until recently.
If it is just a rubbish article about a notable living person, then do you think it is meaningful for a voluntary "community" like WP to reject a voluntary contribution within 3 days of its creation, rather than giving any concrete suggestions for improvement or at least marking it as a stub article? As a volunteer, I would rather like to learn what should a budding Wikipedian author have done to make it notable? Would you consider it appropriate (as per your definition of notable content), if it is marked as "under construction"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrudayan (talk • contribs) 06:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what has been said by the page creator has addressed the problem of establishing notability through credible independent sources. What is most important, though, is that BEFORE creating a page on the encyclopaedia, the editor must arm him/herself with such sources and provide them in the page ab initio. If the editor fails to do so, he/she must expect the page to be rejected because it is the first principle of this encyclopaedia that the material be independently verifiable. This editor has completely failed in that most fundamental aspect of page creation. It is extremely undesirable for editors to take the view that they know something/someone is notable and they know there are sources to show this somewhere out there but they are not obliged to provide them and they can then expect other editors to come to their aid, do the leg work on the research and provide what ought to have been there in the first place. It is completely out of place to then seek to turn this around and say that I have failed in any respect, e.g. rushing to conclusions unfairly, etc. The onus is in the creator to exercise basic prudence and discipline in page creation. WP is in many respects a junkyard for this failing. sirlanz 09:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have seen a flurry of IP editor activity on the page since nomination. There is an awful lot of fluff on the page obscuring the true extent of notability of the subject, i.e. that a short amateur documentary and some travel/home movies were made in Hong Kong in the 50s/60s by the subject and which were once screened by a government department organised film festival there. The article dresses this up to look like a professional director's page, lovely filmography table and all. Look below the surface and what you have is an expat banker who loved taking photos and film and set up a film club, resulting in a few fun clips and one little docudrama. I maintain my objection to its publication on the ground that there is insufficient notability here. sirlanz 02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The actual facts are: a) Hong Kong Purchased his films for their official film archive, b) several retrospectives of his films have been screened, c) reliable sources like Speigel online have done in-depth profiles on his work, d) He directed and had broadcast several television documentaries, e) he's very notable in the Youtube world, and this has been covered by several in-depth articles in reliable sources, and f) more than enough people have written about him in

WP:RS to establish GNG. There's also the issue of insulting an editor who went ot a lot of trouble to create an article on a notable subject. The main issue here in this AfD is how could a nomination by a 'veteran editor' be so far off base, and what's the point of trashing the article creator so viciously on this page and on his talk page? Your hole is already dug, no need to continue. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Let's keep this debate rational. Anyone interested in facts about this AfD may find a viewing of the article as nominated for deletion instructive. It discloses absolutely nothing notable about the subject. Not a single one of the six aspects of notability described above appeared in it. It gave a folksy history of an amateur photographer expat traveller who did nothing whatsoever worth knowing to anyone except his no doubt proud family members or the subject himself. The only sources were a youtube video (deprecated), a blog (deprecated) and the subject's own website (deprecated). The page was unmitigated trash unworthy of our encyclopaedia. It is no longer trash, thankfully, but it still fails notability criteria. sirlanz 00:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far you are the only editor advancing the argument that he's not notable, against the evident facts. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.104.163.153.162 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the issue: if the article is to remain, it must be made clear that the bases are these: (1) one amateur one-man band short of 20 mins made in Hong Kong; (2) one amateur short made with a bank co-worker in Japan (neither short made at a time when film material was in any short supply, rare or particularly unique and against decades of film-making preceding it in both locations); (3) one commercially staged exhibition in Japan; (4) one of many filmmakers screened at one film festival put on in Hong Kong by a government department; and, if you are so inclined (and I am certainly not), (5) made some 150 home-movies/travelogues that people enthuse about (at at time when thousands of people were doing just the same thing worldwide and in the subject locations); and (6) being a great collector of material for publishing on subject's youtube page (and bear in mind that subject is also promoting is book (http://www.bluelotus-gallery.com/shop/hong-kong-fifties-by-michael-rogge). sirlanz 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article will remain: you're the only one (misguidedly) arguing for deletion. It has numerous reliable sources. What's your beef? Totally uncalled for. Drop the stick. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our IP editor is not contributing anything to the decisionmaking process at this point. We need to hear something of substance from the other side of the debate about the crux of the claimed notability. Thousands took fascinating home/travel movies in the 50s the world over; thousands have assembled intriguing collections of all manner of things, historical and otherwise. Many of them have had exhibitions of their collections. Where is the remarkability justifying a WP article? What we need is something in the material itself that reflects something notable from the creator. There is absolutely no evidence of this in the case of Rogge. He did so little more than the average tourist, hobbyist videographer that I do not think we should be promoting his book/youtube promotional interests here. sirlanz 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's zero wrong with being an IP editor. BTW, please read

WP:BLUDGEON as it applies to your approach.104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Keep This is quite a pointy nomination. It's not really necessary to insult so many things-- the article, its author etc. As to the article subject, he seems notable if you do some background searches. Here's a good source on HKmemory, which is published on the government of Hong Kong. That leads me to believe that the Wikipedia article is probably accurate. I see more sources in Google Books, of which some seem to be in other languages. It would seem that at least GNG is established.104.163.153.162 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here also is a long profile in the German publication Der Speigel. That just about nails the notability.
WP:BEFORE and actually checking for existing sources next time. Here's another profile, this time in French, on a site called globalvoices.org. He is apparently very well known for these films. And lastly, here are two pages by the HK ministry of culture describing a MIchael Rogge Film retrospective. Part one and part two. As the HK government itself says in the articles, "Michael Rogge began documenting Hong Kong on film even before the Hong Kong government formed its own film production department. This is why Rogge’s document of Hong Kong life – adding up to over 200 minutes of footage – has become an extremely valuable artifact for Hong Kong." SO basically all of the nomination criteria here are false-- most importantly, he is notable, recognized and good sources exist. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per all the new sources brought up. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the initial concerns about this newly-created article are no longer relevant. I see no remaining argument for deletion other than
π, ν) 20:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per new sourcing, but this article needs to have the fluff cleaned up and probably significantly reduced in length as it would appear to give undue prominence to this guy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination failed
WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 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. There is a consensus here that the failure of this film is what gives it notability per

WP:NFF. Mz7 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

Empires of the Deep

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

Vanity project of a Chinese

WP:NFF: "films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". Timmyshin (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From one of the sources, "The "Empires" budget tops the previous most-expensive film made in China, John Woo's 2008 boxoffice hit "Red Cliff," by $20 million", and that was when there was "only" $100 million spent on it. As the most expensive production in China's history at the time of its creation, it seems like its failure was indeed notable enough for an article, if only for the incredible Wiseau-like ineptitude necessary to waste that much money. If the failure of this movie isn't notable, I don't know what failure would be. Is there proof to the contrary?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per
WP:NFF: "films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable" (emphasis my own). Being the most expensive film in Chinese film history and still unreleased fits the bill for me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:25, 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 00:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per User:Suriel1981 the movie seems to be notable despite its lack of completion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [16] and [17] discuss the film as a disaster, rather than as an in-production film.
π, ν) 20:56, 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 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Country Humane Society

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

Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH John from Idegon (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I agree that this probably doesn't meet the notability requirements - I took a brief search and didn't find any new sources to change the situation. Chris857 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable, non-affiliated local humane society.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Gelt Dekker

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

does not pass GNG, the one possible claim to notability is unsourced Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 05:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 05:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be substantial sourcing in Dutch. Page exists for this millionaire businessman, philanthropist, and museum operator on German WP. HERE is substantial coverage in the book Living History: Encountering the Memory of the Heirs of Slavery. 31.4K Google hits for the very unique name indicates a large iceberg of potential source material. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is a link to his talk at the first Dutch TEDx. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because one is too lazy to look beyond English speaking pages doesn't give one the right to declare "lack of notability". Gelt Dekker's main Wikipedia page is in Dutch [18] and has a number of Dutch language sources. I am adding in-line English and Dutch sources to the English article. As of 28 December article is now better sourced RSarlls
Delete- Not notable. There are lots of millionaire businessmen, if he was a billionaire then maybe. I am not convinced just because a Dutch wiki exists (maybe that should be deleted too?) and one mention in a book isn't notable. In the other sources (at least those I can read), he eithier just gets a passing mention or the sources or local.--
Rusf10 (talk) 14:45, 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 03:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may be lot of millionaires but some can stand out of the rest and this one for sure is. And given his German nationality it is reasonable more sources about him must exist in German, which simple Google search in English cannot show. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wholeheartedly agree with User: RSarlls who said: "Keep just because one is too lazy to look beyond English speaking pages doesn't give one the right to declare "lack of notability". A quick review of his business career and other achievements show he is notable.Knox490 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- squeaks by on
WP:GNG per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 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.

Pseudo Slang

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

This has beent agged for notability for more than 9 years. There is some indication towards

WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 13:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 13:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 13:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to say this band has been or will be a notable band as required by
WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

delete No significant independent coverage to meet
WP:NBAND is met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:44, 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.

Freddie Bourne

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

fails

Rusf10 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

I am also nominating two article about his music:

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 00:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 00:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 00:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 00:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all --
WP:MUSICBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 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.

Pretty Vicious

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

Per

WP:NBAND. Speedy delete request was removed without explanation twice. Trivial coverage of the band (attention from NMW was one paragraph - the second ref covers their debut album) and a lack of awards and/or songs on a national music chart, this band doesn't seem notable enough to have their on WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We judge notability on whether subjects satisfy our guidelines, not on the state of articles. Just a couple of minutes searching found [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] in addition to the perfectly good coverage already cited in the article. Satisfies
WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Sort of off putting to say that I am not judging the article by "our" guidelines here. I took issue with the sources provided (not entirely impressed by the 15 of yours I combed through either), and in researching the band I could not find awards or songs on the national music charts - those are
WP:NBAND guidelines that I used to come up with my conclusion - nothing to do with the state of the article. Maybe try not to be so condescending in your response next time? Comatmebro (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm. You gave no indication in your nomination of having looked beyond what was in the (admittedly very poor) article, and your nomination didn't mention any coverage other than the two sources already cited, despite plenty existing. WP:BAND doesn't require awards or songs on national music charts - they are just of two of the criteria in that guideline. There's enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About half the sources provided by Michig are run-of-the-mill type coverage a professional band receives for mere existence. However, the other half appear to indicate genuine, non-promotional third-party recognition. Should be enough for this subject to merit an article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the band has a song feautered in a very popular videogame allot of people might be looking for it. ([user: somethingcoolandstuff]) 23:25, 2. January 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingcoolandstuff (talk • contribs) 22:25, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Felman

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

Fails

WP:SOLDIER as far as I can see. The article states he received 27 awards and decorations, but the only one specified is a Purple Heart. (A minor quibble, but this is hardly a B-class article.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Felman was a bit player in the whole "Chetniks tried to redeem themselves by rescuing US airmen" story of late WWII. Not notable on his own by rank or awards. I have removed some EL refs to Carl Savich, who is a blogger at best, and certainly isn't a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Too much of the article is fleshed out with things that have no direct connection to Felman.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as not notable for stand alone article.
WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete/Redirect - There are a few sources about him on google books and newspapers.com, but most (all?) of them are really about his work attempting to honor
WP:1E. I could see a redirect to the legacy section of that article or to Operation Halyard. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:47, 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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Caplan

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

Nominating on behalf of a new user

general notability guidelines. Unless somebody else can dig up more coverage, Caplan is likely not notable enough for an article. Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

miss fortune 04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, 5 years is enough to have gotten acceptable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not to be confused with a psychiatrist of the same name. I found this short bio from The Canadian Encyclopedia but thats about it. I could not find multiple reliable sources to verify this
WP:PROF applies here. Mattg82 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The short bio in The Canadian Encyclopedia confirms notability, and also provides claims of significance both as co-chair of two major commissions, and as author of what they call "one of the best books to have appeared on the CCF Party". The book, The Dilemma of Canadian Socialism, also has two published reviews [34] [35], not enough by itself for
WP:AUTHOR but adding enough multiple reliably-published in-depth coverage of some of Caplan's work to confirm the notability from the encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- combination of available coverage, including in The Canadian Encyclopedia and reviews of books establish sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs improvement, but in addition to the sources shown above he garners over 1,300 hits in
WP:GNG. Notability ultimately depends more on the existence of quality sources rather than their already being in the article — and the necessary quality of sources is very much out there. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 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.

City Sports Clubs

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

Small chain of fitness clubs that doesn't appear to pass GNG. Google and Google News searches reveal the standard social media stuff, as well as various clubs in cities with "X City" names (Kansas City, Quezon City, Atlantic City, and the like) that do not appear to have any connection to this northern California business. The one reference in the article is a small promotional blurb about a then-upcoming opening of one of these clubs posted on a site that allows businesses to submit their events for posting. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So what do they have, like ten locations? Their website says they only have locations in California, so I think the others you found may be unrelated. Seems to be written by a
Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG. Promow*nk. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:33, 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 09:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Business Management,CSJM University

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

Blatant

talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but try to find sources. India is trying to grow their economy and many of its citizens have been lifted out of poverty. Looks like a legitimate website and school. Maybe some Indians can find some sources in a different language.Knox490 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is only a department in Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University and do feel a standalone article is not required at best redirect.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 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 09:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Levine

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted in October. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman - executive producer on non-notable titles is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply