Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 27

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas_Babin

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

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

Promotional (auto)biography for a non-notable French executive. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Ikoparis (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ikoparis (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't verify his notability either. Successful employee, but nowhere near notability standards. Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with what's said above. Also was unable to improve this article South Nashua (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fryar

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

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

Fails

• Withdrawn by nominator Magnolia677 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes
  WP:NRODEO by competing in the National Finals Rodeo. Therefore we presume the sources exist. Since his top competition days were over 25 years ago, those sources are going to be hard to find online. Most of those secondary sources would be newspaper articles on rodeos he competed in. Those likely are smaller cities and who even knows how many of those papers are still in business - and those that are how many can be reasonable accessed? Also, for those that don't know rodeo, qualifying for the NFR requires finishing the year in the top-15 in earnings. To finish that high, one almost has to win multiple decent sized or larger rodeos. Such results would have certainly been covered providing the presumed sources. If this were someone competing now I could see people wanting to see more sources since this is only a presumption, but due to the time frame I say we let the presumption carry its weight and keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Two more things that support keep to me. Here is an entry on him in a college rodeo book - [1]. I will admit its just a passing mention, but his inclusion alone in the actual text (as opposed to just a list as champion) in a book like this would show support for sources existing. Second, his death was announced on the pro rodeo circuit homepage and the Wrangler network homepage (current sponsor of the NFR) - see [2] & [3]. While neither qualify as independent, one has to have some standing to have their passing mentioned on those pages. Again, in view of how long ago the subject's prime was, I think that with the presumption being met this all leads to keep. RonSigPi (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Fryar

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

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

Fails

• Withdrawn by nominator Magnolia677 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:NRODEO by competing in the National Finals Rodeo. The Barrel Horse News link is a secondary source. I also found a few other sources -[4] & [5] - they are not super long, but they start building what is needed. With the sources that are found, considering that her NFR appearance was 9 years ago and a lost of smaller town newspapers don't keep things online that long, and that she meets the presumption I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 00:48, 28 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ESCAIDE

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

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

It exists, but what makes it

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Non-notable organization tagged since August 2008.
  talk, contribs) 02:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Zero notability and lack of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 30 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miron Topciu

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

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

Artist is not quite notable yet. After several weeks of searching, I've come up with no independent reliable sources to establish any notability (and per a discussion with the declining admin, I don't believe the book results to be related as Miron was born in 1992 and the books were published in 1984, 1992, 2002, 2004 and 2012. 2012 does mention the subject briefly, "Miron Topciu known and appreciated artistic sites" etc... I find it highly unlikely (and impossible for some) that the other books would cover him. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I don't see the book results. The link that's in the article now appears broken, and a google books link in a previous version of the article gives 2016 for publication date.

comment see here. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no actual museum collections and there's simply nothing convincing for the level of notability needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 28 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voyag3r

Voyag3r (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was previously deleted by way of AfD (over a year ago) and I don't think much has changed save for 2016/2017 inclusions. Still not seeing any evidence of notability satisfying

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and if necessary, salt it. They may become notable at a later point but certainly aren't now. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Bansal

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

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

Currently, fails at

• Delete per nom, in the absence of additional sources establishing notability.
  WP:USUAL applies, of course - it's quite possible that the subject will become more notable as their career moves forward. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: TOOSOON to be a article until more RSes are showed up. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with the above editor its
  WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Looks a bit like an A7 to me. Self-promo - I quote an edit summary: "I have created a new page for my public profile. You can contact me for verification purposes.". Peridon (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional and fails GNG Spiderone 10:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and BIO DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SportsLink

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

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

Non-notable leisure center - this is nothing more than an advert both in style of writing and content. Previous AfD and RfD was for a different subject entirely. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- uncited promotional spam; the section "How to Join" is especially telling. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  WP:G11 for speedy deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 23:41, 29 January 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. Norman

Daniel A. Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability based on the sources in the article and I'm having a hard time finding anything credible.

• Source #1 is a passing mention (more or less listing that his art will be in the exhibit.
• Source #2 - no mention.
• Source #3 - Passing mention, similar to 1.
• Source #4 - no mention. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in page's current references and search in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the refs has a headline mentioning 'lighting up unknown artists'. I get the feeling that this one is a possibly up and coming one who isn't there quite yet. Quite a bit of social media and apparently stock photos at Getty (but I haven't investigated that yet and I'm not sure how much notability that would give - is it like soundcloud where anyone can put stuff, or is it editorially selected?). Otherwise, I can't see much. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Getty Images - They're not editorially selected. It's basically just a Stock Photo selling site. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not demonstrate
  reliable source. The only thing we learn about his impact upon the world from this article is that he has had work in five group exhibitions, none of them in locations for which a Wikipedia article exists. Of those five exhibitions, the source cited for the Toit Sur Toit and Artist Take Times Square exhibitions do not mention that Norman took part; the Artist Take Times Square exhibition was for a single night and on 3 billboards (admittedly in Times Square); the African Diaspora in Brooklyn exhibition has no reference for it at all. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I've had a look around but I've drawn a complete blank on sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - an update as new sources have been added.

• Source #1: Passing mention that he participated in a past exhibition. (Museum website)
• Source #2: No mention whatsoever (Museum website about an exhibition)
• Source #3: Article about Toit sur Toit exhibition (from source 2) makes no mention. (Independent weekly architecture periodical)
• Source #4: PDF of press release from source #2 which makes no mention (press release)
• Source #5: Mentions Daniel Norman in an event notice similar to what one would see on Facebook. (Event notice)
• Source #5: A blog posting about an event at a college, which links to a flyer that lists Norman's name. (Blog event notice)
• Source #6: No mention, event notice from a local online paper (Event notice from Brooklyn Daily Eagle)
• Source #7: Article about a website that illuminates unknown artists, no mention. (NYT article)
• Source #8: Event notice from Timeout.com, no mention (Event notice)
• Source #9: Event notice from an organization sponsor, no mention (event notice) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet
  WP:ARTIST Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 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 as a G5 creation of a banned editor. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daly Babay (entrepreneur)

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

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

The person has no mentions in reliable sources except social media profiles. His company Propertyssimo is also unremarkable! The HuffPost link is dead and cannot be found in web archive! Malunrenta (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article is created by a confirmed sock[6] as part of paid editing. Malunrenta (talk) 16:52, 27 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts

2017 Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

These tournaments fail

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

2017 Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Northern Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Newfoundland and Labrador Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 British Columbia Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Saskatchewan Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Nova Scotia Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 New Brunswick Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Quebec Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Prince Edward Island Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Alberta Scotties Tournament of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Domdeparis (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the criteria of

WP:CURLING. It is a qualifier for one of the most important curling events in the world, the Scotties Tournament of Hearts (Canada has 90% of curlers in the world). Not only that, Manitoba is one of the strongest provinces too, so there should be plenty of external coverage. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment

WP:NEVENTS criteria. Your argument has to explain how these pages meet the criteria. If there is plenty of external coverage as you say then you should add it. I repeatedly tagged one of the articles with a notability tag which was systematically removed without providing in-depth coverage. I opened a discussion on the talk page which was ignored so the best place to discuss the notability is here I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It was me that removed it (instead of the user that is new to Wikipedia, who you accused of doing it), because I had expanded the article enough in my mind. If you had pinged me, an established member of the project (and also the guilty party), I would have been happy to engage with you on the talk page. But anyways, I will state my case here a little more in depth; As I mentioned, most curlers in the world are in Canada, so most of the top curlers in the world are Canadian. There is a World Championships of course, but the national championship (the Scotties Tournament of Hearts is often perceived as being just as prestigious in the curling world. The provincial qualifiers are thus also a big deal, as they are the qualifying events for the national championship, and thus attract the top curlers in the world. The larger provinces have significant press coverage as any google search will reveal. Will you remove this AFD if I add more content with external coverage? -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to add some notable external sources that cover the provincial qualifiers on aggregate, Canada's two leading sports broadcasters regularly publish articles on the events and keep track of them. See here and here for examples. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure where you got the idea that I accused anyone I said that the tag was repeatedly removed but as an experienced editor you should really know when to remove templates as per

sockpuppet accounts... diff 1 and diff 2 Domdeparis (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

My apologies, I was referring to this edit and didn't realize the other user was doing the same (rushed to judgment here). I'm surprised your first assumption would be that I had created a sockpuppet. For what purpose would I do that? Anyways, I removed the template because I had believe that my edits had adequately addressed the issue the template raised, though to be honest I didn't put much thought into it, as if you had objected to its removal you would have notified me on my talk page about it rather than jumping to conclusions and putting it up for AfD. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment once again you're reading more into what I have written than there is, first you say I have accused the creator of these pages of removing the notability tag which, as you can clearly see, I didn't I accused nobody in particular especially as you both removed them... and I simply said that I hoped that you hadn't created a sockpuppet account but I not did say that I assumed you had. I believe my AfD nomination is not unjustified as there is very little that proves notability in the articles. There are almost no other years of these tournaments anywhere on Wikipidia with the exception of 5 other pages here

WP:NCURLING states that all these players are presumed notable i hope the project members are up to the task...by the way i don't understand why bother putting in the criteria N° 3 as all players already meet criteria N°6. It seems very unfair that any other country except for Canada has to have had a podium finish in the National Championships but the Canadian players only have to have participated in one provincial qualifying match. A lot of other sports require that the player play at an international level to be considered notable. Domdeparis (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I hadn't noticed your comments on the talk page, but if you had put something on my talk page, I would've been more likely to notice it. But I digress. And having more coverage of Canadian curling is not "unfair", as I've already stated twice, 90% of all curlers in the world are in Canada, so these provincial tournaments are going to often attract better quality curlers than most national championships. Moot point! And most of these curlers have played on the international level as part of the World Curling Tour. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't put anything on your talk page when I opened the discussion because you hadn't started editing on the page yet so I didn't know you existed and I have to be honest when I see a tag the first thing I do before removing it is check out the talk page as per

WP:DETAG! I thought most editors did this and I thought that someone with administrator rights would have this reflex...my bad. Just to remind you the tag was removed 3 times (once by yourself) and the only sources are stats pages and no editors felt it necessary to check or participate on the talk page hence my AfD. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. Earl Andrew's analysis is good, in so far as the state of play for International Curling stands. I'd like to see more external sourcing (which, as noted, there should be plenty of) - but turn it around, what would be the result of merging these into one page, either the main tournament page or some single subpage? It's cleaner to have them separate, I think. And if they can be sourced properly, I don't see an issue with keeping these. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply as it is almost no other years exist and there are already the winners noted for the other years on the main page eg here

WP:GNG but if sources prove that they do then the individual event should be kept but simple stats does not make an article notable. Domdeparis (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Almost no other years exist? Well, that's patently untrue as well. In fact, we've already had an AFD back in 2012, which was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Yukon/NWT Scotties Tournament of Hearts, and it appears the only reason it was listed was due to the article having been created several months ahead of time. Anyways, I agree that "simple stats do not make an article notable", and I would be happy to add more sources to each article, but I do not want to waste my time if it proves to be futile, which is why I would like you to withdraw the nomination(s) if and when you are satisfied with my contributions to each article when the time arises. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that part of the creation and editing process? Ensuring that the articles meet the GNG? As it is these pages and all of the others that I could find on the provincial playdowns are a simple collection of statistics with an identical lead and often 1 source or are unsourced. Sometimes there are several sources but almost all are not independent from the tournament, (the curling associations, the clubs, the web site that provides the stats are clearly not independent) Eg in the Ontario page [WP:2017 Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts here] there are 8 sources of which 7 are pages that list teams and stats and are all linked in some way or another to Curling in Ontario, the only independent source only mentions this event in passing and talk about the qualifiers for both the Tournament of Hearts and the Tankard. How about a redirect to the main page as I suggested eg Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts and when you have found enough sources to prove notability just rollback the page and add the sources rather than leaving 11 non notable pages? Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd like to point out that many of these pages also have been documented for several years, which at the request for deletion, one might as well get rid of those. It would need to be all or nothing with the exception of each tournament's main page. The reason coverage is so minimal is because many of the curling clubs that host these do not have adequate enough broadcasting capability unlike the national tournaments. For instance, This years Scotties is in St. Catherines at the home of the OHL Niagara Ice Dogs, who have legitimate need for broadcasting rights, whereas the host of the Ontario Provincial Scotties is just held at some curling club that many people probably have never heard of. This is much the same with the Brier where the Newfoundland Provincial Tankard is being held at the Bally Haly Curling Club in St. John's (known only because of an Olympic gold medalist who curls there in this case), but the Brier will be held in the much larger (not a curling club) Mile One Centre. And as a matter of fact, I am scoreboard watching right now on the link included on the page, which updates regularly as to what is happening in Draw 4 of the NL Scotties and Tankard, with scores also being tweeted out by the Bally Haly Twitter Handle.

71.186.189.20 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your remark that coverage is minimal because they do not have enough broadcasting capability is simply endorsing the fact they fail

WP:GNG. We could say the same thing about any competition that has little or no coverage and this is the main argument for not including pages. In the GNG it says If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article and this is what i am suggesting as the main pages for these tournaments lists the winners of each year but in all honesty the pages are just stats and of no encyclopedic interest, all of this information is found on the source page curlingzone and the Wikipedia pages supplies nothing more and is even less detailed. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Whether or not a tournament is broadcasted is irrelevant to the discussion, as there are plenty of GNG sources for most of the tournaments regardless if an event is televised or not. Many of these tournaments are televised of course (nationally at that) and are not just played in curling clubs, but actual arenas. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As for me - Russian curling fan and "main chief about curling in Russian Wikipedia" ;) - my opinion is:
  In any "curling" country any team, who want to play on Worlds, must do two steps: (1) to win National Championship (to give a berth - as "Team Russia" for example - to region Champ, for example European) and (2) to win any of "premium" places (1-7 for Euro, 1-2 for Pacific-Asia, 1 for Amerikas) on region Champ (to give a berth to Worlds from this region).
  Any team - but not Canadian team. For Canada (like a most "curling power" country in the world for today) World Curling Federation made an exception to the general rule "for all other": "Team Jones" (for example) must (1) to win provincial Scotties (it's equivalent of "National" in Russia, Sweden or Japan) and (2) to win Canada Scotties (it's equivalent of European Curling Championships or 2017 Americas Challenge - "regional champ" between USA and Brazil for birth to 2017 Worlds) - and only after doing this two steps "Team Jones" can be "Team Canada" on the Worlds. So I think that 2014 Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts is equal "notable curling event" (and "thing in WP-law") like 2014 Russian Women's Curling Championship (not all curlers who plays on Russian Champ are "great world-known champions" - but they're "notable people" in "curling theme").
  And I'm wondering why this articles about "Canadian provincials Scotties & Briers" (very good and useful information source about "hidden but important pre-history" of any Scotties and Brier about "why Jennifer Jones will not play on 2017 Canada Scotties? who defeated her in provincial semi? how it was in detail? what this winning skip did in curling carrier before this win? who else played in winning team? what teams (and players - maybe young and unknown for today but "great champions 10 years after") else played in this "provincial war"? etc. etc." - and all this information is "structural" and "cross-linked" in special for it making place called Wikipedia) are nominating for deletion.
  Maybe to make equal exception for Canada in WP-"notable events law" for curling events like Canada provincial Scotties/Briers? I mean it'll be on right way - because "curling isn't any other sport - it's curling as is" ;)
  Sorry for my "not the best" English (I hope you understand what I want to say ;) ). -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see how these events can be so definitely stated as non-notable. A quick Google search of the Manitoba Scotties, for instance, shows sources related and unrelated to the tournament, including national and local media outlets. I'm not from Canada, and I ran my search in one area of sources from outside of Canada, so there must be more coverage that I'm not aware of. In addition, the Manitoba Scotties has additional support for notability because of Jennifer Jones's defeat and failure to win the tournament, which is a significant event in the world of curling and is reflected in the news about the Manitoba Scotties.

With regards to the provincial tournaments in general, I don't find the argument that these are simply run-of-the-mill events convincing. I must point out the significance of the Scotties (the Canadian women's championship) in the world of curling, especially because I'm not certain with the nominator's familiarity with curling. As the top curling nation in the world, Canada has a curling culture that is more competitive and developed than any other nation in the sport of curling. A majority of the world's top curling tournaments are held in Canada, and a majority of the top curlers reside in Canada. And, a significant number of those top Canadian curlers reside in Manitoba and play for Manitoba. In covering these athletes, who are certainly notable, it's important to cover these provincial-level tournaments as well. There are far more ordinary and routine curling events than these provincial tournaments, which represent higher levels of curling competition than many national tournaments in other countries. Moreover, their importance is also reflected in the

notability guidelines

that have been set by the Curling Wikiproject. And I'm glad to see that there is no argument against the organization of these events in this manner, since it'd be a nightmare to create and maintain a page with all of these tournaments covered in one article.

Based on these points and those made in posts above, I'd suggest that there is much more to say for the notability of these events than the non-notability, and move to keep all. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:47, 1 February 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.

• Keep. --doncram 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 15:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, a name like Durian (after the fruit) is too common to make searching easy, and the remnants of colonial spelling don't help, but the Ci/Tji Durian/Doerian is quite a major river and certainly worth an article, whatever people have now done to its delta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aymatth2's sources and subsequent article expansion. --TimK MSI (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - from Aymatth2's excellent work - why, even speedy closure and keep it is so good now compared to the original JarrahTree 01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Right now, the AfD template is on two pages: Durian River and Ci Durian, and both are listed at the top of this page. I don't know if refactoring is warranted, but this is confusing. — Gorthian (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after major expansion and sourcing. Pinging KDS4444, maybe he or she will change his or her opinion. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 10:30, 29 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jian-Hua Zhuang

Jian-Hua Zhuang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Hello all. I found this page while I was clearing the backlog at Category:Articles needing Chinese script or text a few weeks ago. I thought I understood the criteria for speedy deletion, but apparently I didn't; so I do apologize for that, and I believe I've given adequate time for the article to improve since that misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, the article remains non-notable. There is only one source, a source from the subject himself. The prizes he has won are not actually named, and information about the competitions is scarce.

I believe that there are not adequate reliable sources about this composer, and that he is not notable as his prizes were not notable, and am thus nominating his article for deletion. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Cannot find anything on him apart from the same brief biographical info, seemingly copied from WP or the one source. His name in Chinese might help, but he is based in Netherlands so any coverage would be expected to use his name as in the article. No evidence of notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• seems he is 庄建华 from the WorldCat page, which lists three short compositions. Searching with the Chinese name does not turn up anything beyond that. Also be careful when searching as the top results in Chinese seem to be an entirely different person (a younger woman).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:36, 27 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amile Waters

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Once the unsourced, self-sourced, and unreliably sourced junk is cleared out, there's not even an assertion of notability. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG --–Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources to support notability claims. No objective PORNBIO claim even before the nominator pruned the article. Claims of notability as an artist and as a sportscaster are based on self-published sources. Independent search for RS coverage yields only cast listings in the porn trade press. Take your pick: fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO,
  WP:ARTIST/WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 27 January 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Var Francis

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

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

The subject of this article has requested deletion ticket:2017012710005992 While we do not automatically delete an article simply because the subject requests it, the subject also claims that the article was created by a promotional company who created the page. I don't see any signs that the original editor of the article has declared their conflict of interest. Is this a sufficient justification for removal of the page? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - Notable wrapper, SOHH just did a feature on him. If a promotional company made the page, it should be cleaned up instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectureNerd (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete While there is indeed a piece on him at
  talk) 17:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Blatant promotion bombarded with dud sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant Promo. Ridiculously obvious Conflict of Interest editing on this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Mr. Scruff#Singles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalimba (Mr. Scruff song)

Kalimba (Mr. Scruff song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Should be a redirect, but keeps getting restored. No indication it passes

• Redirect to the album, Many know this as the windows7 sample song but no sources have really taken note of that fact from what I can find. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely agree, ValarianB, but the redirect keeps getting reverted, which is why I brought it here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, if sources can't be found and this closes as a redirect then you can use that the next time someone goes on a revert war. This close will be the "this is what the community decided" and if they persist in reverting, can be brought before the disciplinary boards here. ValarianB (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to emphasize the solution. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Onel5969 and ValarianB. If the redirect is reverted after this closes the page can be protected to prevent that happening again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:17, 30 January 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 07:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise coexistence

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

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

Seems to be at best a non-notable neologism or buzzword. Except for references to a specific product by this name by a company called BitTitan, I couldn't find any sources using "enterprise coexistence" as a set phrase. It's used in only two of the sources supplied by the author (including the several he said he added to show that it existed), one of which is a reference to the BitTitan product. Similarly "coexistence server" as mentioned in the article seems to be a specific product by Cognitive Networks, not a generic name for a type of server. Largoplazo (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination. I was hasty, and hadn't noticed that the author hadn't added only references, but also content elaborating on the variability of terms to refer to the same concept. My apologies. Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 27 January 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.

DJ Rekha

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

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

May not meet notability guidelines. Not properly sourced. RoCo^(talk) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes basic
  WP:GNG covered in the New York Times [7], The Guardian [8] and the Huffingtonpost [9]. FITINDIA (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note I have added the above sources to the article. FITINDIA (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets
  WP:MUSICBIO. In addition to the sources presented above by Fitindia, here's one from NPR: link. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altarum Institute

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

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

Limited notability, according to the searches I have carried out. Cloudbound (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Depending on your interpretation of the GNG, the article may or may not be notable. At first glance it meets the GNG threshhold of multiple [i.e. 2] reliable independent sources: Washington Post and Crain's Detroit. The institute also has significant impact in its field with almost 900 Gnews hits, most of which are references to its reports. However, there's a catch - the Washington Post article is an interview, and the GNG implies that interviews do not count towards notability. It says that sources should be secondary, and
  WP:OR says that interviews are primary sources. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_49#Interviews_count_as_primary.2C_but_it_says_for_GNG_you_need_secondary_sources. I think an interview is evidence of media attention though, so I am leaning towards keep. Note that I don't have a Highbeam subscription so I can see how much coverage there is in the Washington Post interview. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:00, 3 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Tadros

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

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

Deleted six years ago at AfD. Article is sourced, but no indication at all of notability outside of the the Chicago area. Delete for failure to satisfy

DeleteNot notable outside the Chicagoland area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.172.191 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K2rhym

K2rhym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not sure what's notable about this rap musician. —S Marshall T/C 22:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to have been in the news for a fraud conviction e.g.:[10], but that is an apparent
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 3 February 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 Result is deletion due to not enough notability and overly promotional.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigDecisions

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

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

Non-notable website. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree. Borderline promotional, very meager sourcing--does not pass GNG. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ramy

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

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

A couple of (potentially) reliable sources mention him, but only in his function as president of the Restaurants' owners organization, being interviewed about such things. I cannot find any RS actually talking about him as a person, especially not about the presumed medal he received or his other achievements. SoWhy 09:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:42, 27 January 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 '. It was speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Kasyap (actor)

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

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

Non-notable actor

• DELETE - In fact, I did a CSD. This is purely bogus. A known sock puppet vandal. The page has been deleted numerous times before. Kellymoat (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user deleted the notice for this discussion. Kellymoat (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G5 - created by Mahul kashyap (see deleted contribs of blocked Kasyap K vaibhav). Having CU run now -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 12:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you also need to do something about the ip addresses (the 49. range). They have been running amok adding the name to pages. I got the pages protected, but the ip block was denied because I didn't file properly. Kellymoat (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Speedy delete as Samtar said and salt as this is a similar recreation. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:53, 27 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Campbell

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

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

Biography of a "Canadian cannabis activist", supported by passing mentions. Calton | Talk 08:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - Added as a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration to improve the Women in Cannabis category. Subject is specifically mentioned by a reputable source as one of the sources as one of the most influential people in Canadian cannabis. ArchitectureNerd (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

• May I ask if you connected with the subject of the article? HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 04:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reads like promotional material. The primary author has had nice things to say about Lisa Campbell in other articles as well. I suspect a possible conflict of interest. If this is a subject that has established notability I think it would be better rewritten from a more neutral point of view. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 05:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Subject is specifically mentioned by a reputable source as one of the sources as one of the most influential people in Canadian cannabis.

Except that statement isn't true: Lisa was quoted in that article but the headline was in reference to the group not the person --Calton | Talk 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as promotional. Whether or not intended as advertising, that's the effect. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 4 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better Dwelling

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

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

Non-notable company. Just passing mentions as sources, and no really detectable signs of notability, just ad-speak. PROD tag removed with no actual improvements. Calton | Talk 08:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - Significant Canadian media company syndicated by a large US media outlet. A media company's significance is based on its reputation as a source, and being sourced by international outlets in multiple languages is speaks to notability IMO. A search for Better Dwelling in Google News excluding the company's domain comes up with 122k results. The wiki page was modeled after the Visual Capitalist Wikipedia page however, which may have been a bad structure to follow. ArchitectureNerd (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

A media company's significance is based on its reputation as a source, and being sourced by international outlets in multiple languages is speaks to notability. No it doesn't: being the topic of significant non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources does. --Calton | Talk 18:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete a self-promotional article on an subject that lacks independent 3rd party coverage. The article is a combination of OR and advertorial content, strongly suggesting that it's
  WP:TOOSOON for this business to have an entry in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Thaere might prove to be notability here, but the article would need to be started over in a more objective fashion. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 4 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gluckstein

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

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

Directory listing for an interior designer. Even the passing mentions are minimal. PROD tag removed with no real improvement to article. Calton | Talk 08:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - Canadian media personality on Cityline, a large Canadian television show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectureNerd (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD

.

Being a television personality is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage about him, not by being the creator of media coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Gnews search above does reveal prominent, headline-coverage by major Canadian news media. Some may dismiss the coverage as "advertorial," but to choose one example, the Toronto Star clearly indicates when a piece is paid advertorial, and this isn't, at any rate.
  talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Except that Google hits =/= actual notability, and the Toronto Star story isn't the least bit biographical, it's basically a mouthpiece for his advice on home decor. --Calton | Talk 18:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not seeing substantial news coverage to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Being a regular contributor to a television talk show can be enough to get into Wikipedia if the article can be properly sourced over
  reliable source, and the only source that counts for anything whatsoever (Toronto Star) doesn't count for much since it's not a substantive profile about him, but merely quotes him giving decorating advice. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to make the article keepable — if you're shooting for "notable because he exists", rather than "notable because he was awarded the Order of Canada, or a Canadian Screen Award, or a major literary award for his book on the history of interior design", then the sourcing has to do considerably more than just nominally verify that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 1 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCodeCamp

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

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

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

Part of a clear paid advertising campaign in which the only parts added were what the company advertises to clients and this is shown by the fact the only accounts heavily involved were the clearly COI-involved ones, and the sources only consist of business announcements, listings and mentions with searches instantly mirroring it, so there's nothing to satisfy our non-negotiable policies. In fact, not only is all of this what they would host at their own "About" page, the reception section is entirely sourced to their website. In fact, sources offered by user werr all clear announcements and listings ,still emphasizing WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - The page needs a cleanup, but I'm surprised they didn't have a page before. it's a non-profit referenced in almost every tech blog. Should be marked for improvement instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectureNerd (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - Disclaimer: I am the main author of this article and also a student of freeCodeCamp, hence admittedly anything other than neutral. But the article is clearly not part of a "paid advertising campaign." The fCC project is a nonprofit open-source organization. They provide free education. Even if the article is not great in its present state, the project's noteworthyness is, IMHO, easily proved by googling its name. You'll find a ton of trustworthy sources. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - Each claim in this proposal is false as of the date it was submitted, 27 January 2017. While the original article did appear to cite only subject sources, it has since been modified to include several noteworthy independent publications, not "announcements and listings." The accusation of a paid advertising campaign is baseless and is argued with no evidence. I don't know what a "reception section" is, per the moderator, but if they meant reference section, this claim is also false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDJAnalyst (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! - This request for deletion is clearly very misinformed and makes me wonder if the author actually read the page or understands what Free Code Camp is. Free Code Camp has hundreds of thousands of users and is teaching people programming skills throughout the world, has existed for over two years, and is a totally not-for-profit organization. This request for removal is absolutely groundless and honestly very disheartening to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.69.64 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: The above user's first and only edit is today and to this Afd. CBS527^Talk 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete Fails
  WP:NOT applies. (Changed to keep based on new sources added to article.) This page (Free Code Camp) was speedy deleted in September, 2015 as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. This re-creation has the same problems. More importantly, the article doesn't establish notability. Article lacks multiple, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The current sources in the article are not sufficient to meet this requirement. The current sources in the article consists of 8 references to the subject web site, an article about a software engineer with the web site, a Twitter message from the same software engineer, a listing in Recruiter.com, a listing in educationdive.com and an article in wire.com which is the closest to the requirements. An open Google search provide nothing new to establish notability. "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. Wikipedia is not a web directory. CBS527^Talk 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Neutral leaning weak keep. There's likely some COI going on here, but the article is still acceptably neutral in tone, in my opinion. Frankly I didn't find the older article at
  WP:G11 either. I tried to improve this new attempt a bit, and it still needs work, but I think the subject may be notable enough to warrant inclusion, if not just marginally. The thing is technical websites are not as attractive to the general public, and hence are neglected by major outlets and reporters. Take that as a poor argument for keeping, sure, but I'm merely speaking as a web developer myself (though I've never used Free Code Camp). You might compare this article with the current state of W3Schools (permalink), which is among the most notable coding schools and widely cited web references (not the most reliable though, but I digress). Overall it's a tough call, but if it were up to me I'd say it's worth seeing how this develops — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Scratch that. I'm uncovering more and more sources with more research (in particular KSL). I'm convinced the subject is notable and there is room for expansion — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned it is difficult to find acceptable sources for websites in the main stream media. I feel the additional sources you added improved the article to help establish the notability of freecodecamp.com. The addition of the Forbes article and Inc article listing freecodecamp.com as place to learn code for free indicates that the site is notable enough. The KLS article seems to be more of an interview and may lean to being more of a primary source as opposed to being an independent source. Based on your additions I feel the page at least passes GNG and I'll change my !vote. CBS527^Talk 15:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not however think

  Quincy Larson is notable beyond founding this website, and that page should be redirected. Most of the sources regarding him can be adapted to expand freeCodeCamp — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I agree with that. Thanks for your help! --Jan Schreiber (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the very least, I think this article should just be marked as "Needs Improvement." I like the comparison to
  Meetup (Google search results for Meetup and freeCodeCamp). As MusikAnimal has mentioned, it is true that websites with technical audiences are the ones that cover freeCodeCamp, including an established podcast (airing since 2009) The Changelog ("Free Code Camp with Quincy Larson"). However, web development is becoming a more widely discussed topic to more general audiences (Huffington Post on web development and Forbes article on future of web development). Disclaimer, I have used freeCodeCamp and have not and do not receive any financial benefit from them. Erictleung (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 3 February 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.

Minami Itahashi

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

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

The mere fact that she competed in one international event does not indicate notability, particularly as she did not medal or otherwise distinguish herself in the competition. Delete as failing

• Delete It looks this she just participate in one event, complete out of the blue. This is a common problem with SvG-articles. Falls foul of
  WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 09:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, clearly. The article shouldn't have been brought back to the mainspace like this, as it doesn't remedy the typical SvG problems. However, she finished eighth at the 2016 Olympics![11]. In the future, just send such pages back to draft space instead, or follow
  Fram (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep she passes NSPORT as she competed at the Olympic games. Does she pass GNG? I am not sure, someone would need to research Japanese press but there is a good possibility she would that is why NSPORT is written the way it is. - GB fan 11:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I am not sure what the proper way is to bring sportspeople from SvG-articles back to mainspace, once the subject reaches notability. The participation in the Olympics is generally sufficient to pass
  WP:NSPORTS. Inwind (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I would state for the record that ultimately it is the 100% burden of the article creator and supporters of retention to establish notability by properly sourcing the article. Had the article creator done that, we would not be here. If I had not taken this to AfD, the article would likely have stayed in it previous shape, not mentioning her Olympic participation. Sometimes, you just have to beat people over the head to get things done around here. Sourcing is still on the weak side for a BLP article. Safiel (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said, next time you encounter one like this put it back in draft space and indicate to the draft accepter what they did wrong. Don't use AfD for it please.
    Fram (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per
  WP:NOLY Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Keep now that it's been established that she competed at the Olympics. But this shouldn't have been brought back to article space without that assertion, and a proper cleanup of the SvG mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have expanded the article and every sentence is now sourced. She is certainly not a "one event". If a "second event" is required, then "youngest ever winner at the Japanese national championships" should be sufficient. I invite Safiel and The Banner to take a look at the article now. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chowky

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

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

• Why? we aren't allowed to have an article on a level of Indian police stations? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep there's no question about notability, and the nom has misunderstood the difference between having an article on something and a dictionary entry. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Chowky is kind of a small street police outpost. FITINDIA (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep geographic things like this have inherent notability. This appears to meet GNG based on the sources in the article in any case (if barely).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in this case, NAD actually doesn't apply.
  Lepricavark (talk) 00:43, 31 January 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.

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

)

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

No indication of notability. No sources other then a link to their personal website. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For the moment I'll just note that quite a few potential sources pop up in GBooks, GNews, and GScholar, including for example [12] and [13] and [14].
  WP:BEFORE emphasizes that sources like these should be examined before an AfD is filed. At first glance, it looks like he may well be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Film Critics Society

Denver Film Critics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Another non-notable regional film-critics group, like the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and others WP:FILM editors have deleted. Virtually no outside articles are cited to assert notability. The official site can't even be reached via Google Chrome since a malware warning comes up. Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 01:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable group to begin with, but there's absolutely zilch in the article about the organization itself, just random outdated lists.
  ^{• speak up •} 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete My first reaction was to assume the DSFC to be
  American Film—nothing there. — Neonorange (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Not a notable society.
  WP:NOTOPINION. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Normally film societies like this can gain notability if enough major publications report on their awards each year. For example, if their award results were posted in an RS like Twitch Film, Variety, or the like, then that would help establish notability for them since the result reporting would show that these outlets felt that the awards were major enough to report on - even if it was just a list of the awards. They don't do that for all of them. The only drawback is that I can't find any evidence that any outlets have done this aside from ones in Colorado. The only one I found was from Uproxx. It gets mentioned here and there in some places, but never in enough depth to be considered anything but a trivial mention. Unless someone can find more coverage, this will have to be a delete on my end.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Keep and fix
  list article of multiple notable projects, perhaps a name change would be suitable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Counting Google hits =/= demonstrating actual notability, and especially when the hits are as terrible as these. It's not just passing mentions, it's passing mentions on quicky celebrity biographies, Wikipedia reprints, and vanity-press books. Did you even LOOK at what your Google search brought up or did you just count hits? What are the ACTUAL reliable sources? -Calton | Talk 19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite anyone to click on the Google Books search link for the "almost 2,000" Google Books links. For me, one and two explicitly say Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Number three is a vanity-press book (printed by Lulu) on bullying, padded with Wikipedia biographies, including actors and their awards. Number four is another Lulu special, allegedly a biography of Angelina Jolie, but actually appears to be a collection of every Wikipedia article connected to Jolie: the Denver Film Critics Society shows up as part of a list at the end. Five is a quicky biography from self-publisher Smashwords -- again, DFCS appears on a list. Six is an actual book, but it's on video games, AND trying to search inside the book actually generates zero hits. Seven is a guide to the TV series Lost, and the DFCS appears in once in an author's bio (this book is also -- literally -- the only book published by this publishing company). Numbers eight and nine are biographies or Kathryn Bigelow and Elizabeth Olsen, issued by an Australian vanity press -- no search available, but since their descriptions have been cribbed directly from their subjects's Wikipedia articles, I'm not holding out a lot of hope. Number ten is 109 Moonrise Kingdom Secrets You'll Remember, from the same Australian vanity press. Are you starting to detect a pattern here?

I cannot opine a delete when we began with a poor search Yet you've opined a keep based on a poor search. You don't get to claim notability by conducting a Google search and simply reading off the number at the top of the page, you have to actually show reliable sources FROM a Google search. --Calton | Talk 08:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the nomination. The "new sources" are garbage. See above. --Calton | Talk 19:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Calton.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 31 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Targumatik

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

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

No more sources found than what's already in the article; no notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Calico journal article has 20+ pages about Targumatik. Looks like good source. There may be reviews of this software in Hebrew language magazines (probably printed), but such search is above my capability. Pavlor (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at this article and I don't think it meets notability criteria. The references are skimpy and the short description of the software contains little concrete information or scope for linking to other pages. I support deletion. Bristol Irish (talk) 20:34, 2 February 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.

Tuff Sunshine

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

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 12 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana De Maria

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

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

May not meet

• Delete per
  WP:NACTOR. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:12, 19 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Eklöf

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

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

Non-notable architect. There is one reference in the article but I don't know to what extent it covers him. I can't find any other sources; unless there are some in Swedish that someone can find. Doesn't meet

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Here's an entry on Sven Eklöf in KulturNav, a joint database for museums and other cultural institutions in Sweden, which apparently has considered him fit for inclusion and also confirms basic facts about him (date of birth and death, education and so on), some of which is presently missing in the wp article. It also contains a list of sources, including Lisa Brunnström's book mentioned in the article. /FredrikT (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have now added several facts from the above source to the article. /FredrikT (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of sources suggest he was a minor architect at
  WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 17:13, 3 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bochek

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

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

Appears to fail

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and no third-party sources save for aforementioned doping ban, and has never played in the NHL.
  ^{• speak up •} 01:54, 20 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Football

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

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

Giant, barely-referenced, jokey article about a game with no indication of notability per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable, not verifiable, and violates WP:NOT -- it's basically a detailed instruction manual.Glendoremus (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - Verifiable and widely practiced/taught at youth religious and secular gatherings. Secondary sources are available from church-community publications, instructional guides provided by regional youth-group leaders etc. Earliest online reference dates back 22 years. When I have time I will update the article with some more appropriate and careful citations.
  • https://books.google.ca/books?id=iN0WfZcAs8AC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=silent+football+unitarian+universalist&source=bl&ots=GORle8COJQ&sig=01pxtUn29f_wevzlysmbHJRN-oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIz-DTstXRAhWh7IMKHZPEBuIQ6AEINDAI#v=onepage&q=silent%20football%20unitarian%20universalist&f=false
  • http://www.shelterneckuucamp.org/YouthCamp/Counselors.html
  • http://ministry-to-children.com/silent-football/
  • https://www.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/documents/youthoffice/deepfun.pdf
  • http://www.campgames.org/game/silent-football-aka-sir-mayor-sir

  XXXX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reformatted your list of sources to avoid the <ref> tags, which cause them to display incorrectly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Schenker

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

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Difficult to determine Most of the sources are in German, so it is difficult for me to evaluate their validity for news sources. It would be good to get someone who actually reads german and can conduct a proper German search for sources of this athlete involved in this AfD.MATThematical (talk) 21:55, 21 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad issues

List of Mad issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of Mad issues (1952–59) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mad issues (1960–69) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mad issues (1970–79) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mad issues (1980–89) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mad issues (1990–99) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mad issues (2000–09) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mad issues (2010–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for original research since 2009 with no improvement. The individual lists impart no new information except for a completely contextless list of articles within. Most magazines do not have lists of this sort to begin with, and there is no precedent for having any of this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As much as I've always been a fan of the magazine, I'm going to have to go with Delete on this. The main article is mostly OR - most of the statements are using the actual magazines themselves as the sources in order to support the article author's own analysis. The little bits that are not, such as the excerpt from
  WP:LISTCRUFT. Additionally, the information presented within them is completely unsourced. As the nominator said, its not a usual thing for Wikipedia to catalogue the contents of every issue of a magazine, and for a publication that is as long running, and still continuing, like Mad, this is going to be nothing but an ever increasing pile of cruft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete all. The base article isn't about issues per se, but rather a summary of the magazine itself. Lists of issue contents are pretty much unprecedented. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all.
  WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, although the bit about the Houghton Library may be worth merging to the main Mad (magazine) article. I'm not sure just how significant inclusion at the librarly actually is. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I love Mad, but this is all a bit too indiscriminate. There might be merit in having a list of individual issues that were especially iconic or controversial, but there's no need to have this here. I have no objection to this being sent to a fan wiki, if any of them need it.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:FANCRUFT. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all -- The object seems to be to provide a contents list for the magazine. This is most unlikely to be useful and is certainly not encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]