The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly McCormack

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

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actress, writer and producer, which literally just states that she exists, the end, and then reference-bombs the fact of her existence with WP:BLOGS and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES but exactly zero evidence of reliable source coverage apart from a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her. As usual, an actress or a screenwriter is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; reliable source coverage supporting a credible notability claim per WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject may rate an article someday, but not yet.Rogermx (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 14:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Barclay

Kayla Barclay (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)

Some opening thoughts, in preparing this article I realized we need to discourage people from removing "broken links". The broken link removed was the Deseret News article on Barclay, which is the only thing that could count as a reliable, 3rd-party, secondary source. I was able to find her Linkedin page and her website, which include information she got a masters degree from George Washington Univeristy, lives in the DC area and works in public relations. Still even with the Deseret News article the place of and date of her marriage are totally unsourced. IMDb is not a reliable source. Being Miss Utah is in and of itself not a claim to being notable. I thought it was when I created this article back in August 2008 on the day the Deseret News article used as a source was published. My google search showed up nothing else except short one sentance mentions in Sanpete County publications, nothing to support passing the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as only trivially known for 1 pageant and only other trivial ones accompanying hence there's nothing at all for genuine significance. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RogueKiller

RogueKiller (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:CursonMF (creator, WP:SPA) with the following rationale "Secondary sources were added (others will follow). Removal of the Proposed deletion banner.". I don't find the added refs very convincing, the best they show (and I don't see anything better) are reviews from minor websites: Bleeping Computer is the only one of that bunch that has a Wikipedia article, and it may need to have its notability considered, too. And few reviews in minor sites of dubious reliability are not sufficient to make soft notable. So, bottom line, this software fails NSOFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Probably notable based on the staff-written description on Majorgeeks, 299 reviews and 950k downloads, but I'm not seeing any examples where they actually suggest using it! I'm going to delete the fluffy "reception" section as it has no place on a functional software article. Jergling (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Majorgeeks a reliable source? It doesn't seem notable, so a review in it does not hold that much water, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The references fail the criteria in WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - a few references about, but typically it appears in a list alongside other products. I don't think that there are enough references to show that it is genuinely notable. Shritwod (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a vanity page / WP:MANUAL on an unremarkable product. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial with nothing close to establishing both a convincing and improved article thus deleting solves it, and that's the clear solution here. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Baer

Greg Baer (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)

Baer is a motivational speaker/writer. The article is mainly sourced to his websites and promotional material, speaker bios from places he is about to speak, and it has an article that only mentions him in local coverage of an LDS youth conference in Rome Georgia. There is a lack of reviews we would need to pass the notability guidelines for writers and nothing approaching the level of sources needed to pass the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in this case as although WorldCat has a considerable number, everything else is still weighing against genuine notability, especially since the holdings are still undersatisfying as it is. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree about not finding reviews for his books, and I'm not finding enough to support WP:GNG. There are some articles and, I assume this is the same Greg Baer, found in Cosmopolitan several times.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2016 (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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aslett

Don Aslett (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)

Aslett owns a local cleaning service in Pocatlello, Idaho. He also has written books about cleaning. When your books have to be sourced to a libarry catalogue instead of reviews, that is suggesting not really notable. Most of the sources listed here are his websites or connected to his publishers. My search for additional sources was not very helpful. I came up with sources showing his comapny leasing space in Idaho and that was about it, and an article written by someone of the same name in a southern Idaho paper, but that looked to be by someone else, unless some of the detials of his education here are wrong. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Johnpacklambert I find 136 items in HighBeam Research. Some of them are news wires, but there are a lot of magazine and newspaper articles. (I filtered by magazine and newspaper publication types and got 132 items, but some of those are still news wires.) What do you think? I am happy to work on this article, if you those sources might make it a viable article. --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 14:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ashdown

Frank Ashdown (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)

Ashdown just does not pass the notability guidelines of musicians. On the side of GNG, the Church News article might be enough for one point, see here [1] although others might argue it is too much a recapped interview without fact checking to be useable. The Palo Alto sourced article is not about him, and the other source is from his publisher. So we do not have multiple independent 3rd party secondary sources as required by the GNG. For the record I created the article, but have since come to realize that GNG requirements are more stringent. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely trivial as not only is the information barely anything, it's not actually significant, everything else summarizes it as this also, hence not notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (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. Whether as a copyvio or otherwise, nobody wants to keep this around.  Sandstein  14:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multidimensional Signal Reconstruction

Multidimensional Signal Reconstruction (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)

Looks like copyvio from this: book The Banner talk 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't view the Gbooks entry you shared, for some reason, but the way the article is written seems like it wasn't originally formatted for Wikipedia. I'm inclined to agree for that reason. It's also a guide, which doesn't belong here. If it's not a copyvio, we might move it to Wikiversity (supposedly, I just learned about this). Jergling (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update - Fixed the gbooks search by re-submitting. I'm not sure it's a deletion-worthy copyvio, but it is made by a SPA switching between two similarly named accounts. The methods described here are not credited to anyone or properly cited at all, and the refs here are mostly "letters" as opposed to accepted papers. No case is made for this being a disctinct subset of Signal reconstruction or even Analog to digital conversion. Jergling (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2016 (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. Article in question has been made into a redirect, by Tokyogirl79. I can see no real reason as to relist again. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saptagiri express movie

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

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. Sources. Anup [Talk] 03:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's a bit out there for it and at the very least I do think that it could redirect to a subsection of Thirudan Police, as this is a remake of that film. I'm going to fix the title on this to go to the correct capitalization. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree for a merge/redirect but I'd want to know why it couldn't be a standalone piece. In addition to available sources, I believe it is reasonable to except some more sources after this film hits the theater. Doing a merge now, and in a month or so undoing that effort doesn't appeal to me. Anup [Talk] 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to be a bit conservative sometimes with unreleased movies unless there's a large amount of sourcing. This could probably pass, which is why I haven't decided one way or another yet - it's on the borderline for me. I want to see how others weigh in first, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:NFSOURCES. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the great work by Tokyogirl79 demonstrates, it does pass WP:NOTFILM. Nominating an article of an Indian film article an hour after creation is not helpful, a form of WP:BITE and a possible case of WP:BIAS. [2]--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Calabria. Don't usually close on one !vote however participation's extremely low and I don't believe relisting will achieve anything so am closing as Merge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncial reparto corse

Uncial reparto corse (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)

Unical reparto corse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Non-notable university club. Nominated for speedy deletion, which was declined with the note that "it could be merged with the article about the university". However, the University of Calabria article is not presently sufficiently detailed in its description of the Engineering department to merge this content in as a subsection. Short of creating an entire section on the U.Cal. Engineering Department simply to house this content about a non-notable club, deletion of this article about a non-notable club seems to be the appropriate course of action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note page has been moved to Unical reparto corse since this nomination was made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into University of Calabria. Google News provides some sources. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (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 Move and redirect as suggested.  Sandstein  16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 2017 Mediterranean Games

Algeria at the 2017 Mediterranean Games (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)

empty article; no use until 2018 (the games have been moved to then) anyways. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move, then redirect for now - the article should be moved to Algeria at the 2018 Mediterranean Games to reflect the accurate year, then redirected to 2018 Mediterranean Games until such time as there is something useful to put here. The edit history will come in useful at that point and that's standard practice for the "X at Competition Y" articles until there's something useful for it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Savitt

Scott Savitt (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)

not enough reliable sources to establish notability per WP:JOURNALIST. Just mentions and written articles posted by the subject could be found online. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a horribly written article, at times not even showing basic understanding that mentions to the lives of real people should always be in the past tense unless you are saying something about them that applies when you are writing. However there are 2 reliable, 3rd party sources about him, the San Francisco Chronicle article about his leaving China and the National Geographic article on 10 books to travel the world with that includes a book by Savitt. This article needs lots of improvement in the way it is written. However Savitt does pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have cleaned up the article and removed some copyrighted text. --TheDomain (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Argetsinger

Gerald Argetsinger (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 level of playwrighting and directing that Argetsinger was involved in does not seem to have risen to an actual level of notability. This is even more suggested by the fact that all 3 sources are written by Argetsinger, or biographical blurbs connected with material he wrote. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as everything here is still trivial and WorldCat itself only lists 900, simply not enough for a convincing article, let alone genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2016 (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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Parks

Phaedra Parks (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 article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:38, 9 November 2016 (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. Meets WP:ACTOR per consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Bailey

Cynthia Bailey (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 article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just about a keep as per WP:ACTOR. Has appeared in a number of movie and TV productions and it could be argued that the "Housewives of Atlanta" has a cult following. I've expanded the article and added more references. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She appeared in the 2016 movie "Sharknado: The 4th Awakens" Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2016 (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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Whitfield

Sheree Whitfield (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 article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable, sources fail to establish notablity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2016 (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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeShawn Snow

DeShawn Snow (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 article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show for ONE season. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the show. Mymis (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article crammed with primary and other non-reliable sources. Notability not established by brief, one-appearance career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2016 (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 as WP:IAR, considering not only has the author started mass-AfDs with vague explanations or none sufficiently compelling for clear deletion, this is in fact notable for WP:PROF, thus with the nominator questionability, it's enough to WP:IAR close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Pickett

Susan Pickett (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:7 Unremarkable Person(s) Or Band Evan Daniel Collett 02:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. If she is a scholar, I don't see any published articles, so fails WP:PROF. As an author, is she is Susan Eileen Pickett, she has one book to her name ([3], [4]), and its self-published (Lulu Publishing Services), with no reviews I can find, so fails WP:AUTHOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she meets criterion five of WP:NPROF, as she holds a named chair. --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 15 November 2016 (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. Soft delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Bill Colorado

State Bill Colorado (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. Minor, niche portal/trade journal that fails aforementioned policies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 15 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lili de Hoyos Anderson

Lili de Hoyos Anderson (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)

Anderson just has not received the level of notice to make her notable per general notability guidelines or author notability guidelines. I hate admitting this, because I created the article, and having an article on the half Mexican, half French Mormon wife of a fully American man is the type of stereotype busting I like to do. However there just are not enough sources to show that Anderson is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or anything actually close to it, the library collections are quite trivial and there's nothing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magà Ettori

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

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG the article in French for this Frenchman was deleted as he was not considered notable enough in 2013 and there seems to have been little or no change in his notability. Article here Domdeparis (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he's actually Corsican, not French. He's received enough coverage for his films and his animal rights activism that I think he meets GNG. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Of course he is French!!! Corsica is a French Island there is no such thing as the Corsican nationality. You could say he's from Corsica or he is Corsican but he is also French. Domdeparis (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's Corsican, similar to the way that Puerto Ricans are Puerto Ricans, even though they are also American citizens. I didn't say his passport was Corsican, I said HE is Corsican. He is not a Frenchman. You can't seriously argue that there is no such thing as Corsican people. I pointed this out because, being that he is Corsican, which has its own language, the fact that his article was deleted from the French-language Wikipedia is not relevant. He has achieved notability in Corsica as provided by the links above, in addition to the English-language magazine article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have dual nationality, French and British I have been living in France for 25 years i know what i am talking about. Of course he is a Frenchman i don't want to get into a sterile argument about Corsican independence and i never said that he wasn't Corsican but you cannot say that he isn't French, that is intellectually dishonest. When Corsica gains independence and is no longer part of France you can say that they are no longer French but until then this is blatantly wrong. In the same way you cannot say that Sicilians are not Italians. Corsica is a French department and all Corsican are French whether they like it or not. the situation Puerto Rico is totally different there are 2 citizenship Puerto Rican and American, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth but is not a US state. I suggest you read Puerto Rico and Corsica to get a better understanding of the differences. Domdeparis (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were identical; I said they were similar. In English we would not refer to someone from Corsica (or someone who is Basque for example) as a Frenchman as this has ethnic connotations. The same way you have the terms Englishman, Scotsman or even Yorkshireman - adding the suffix -man applies ethnicity or locality, not citizenship or nationality. My point is that your argument about the article being deleted off the French wikipedia is totally irrelevant. I have provided sufficient coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Wikimandia: I'm not sure if English is your first language but the normal way to describe a man who has French nationality and is a citizen of France is as a Frenchman it has nothing to do with ethnicity it is a simple matter of semantics and nothing more. Someone from the USA is an American someone from Germany is a German someone from Great Britain is a Briton (he may also be a Scot) someone from Spain is a Spaniard and a chap from the Netherlands is a Dutchman it's just the idiosyncratic way that English works. You might like to read this Demonym#-man it should help you understand. Someone who holds an American passport is an American even if he describes himself as being a Hawaiian, I would say that Corsica is much much closer in status to Hawaii than Puerto Rica, you might want to compare the 2 to understand the similarities. Domdeparis (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra Pandey

Shailendra Pandey (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 crdible assertaion of importance, and very little if any notability. Listing for community input, and request a salt finding id deleted since this article keeps coming back. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are some buzz around this upcoming film which is produced and directed by him. But one film is not going to help him meet WP:DIRECTOR. I couldn't find anything for his career in journalism, so he fails there too. Falling back to GNG, there is nothing or very little about him in reliable sources (one can notice that lack of sources is attempted to balance by refbomb'ing film section of article. 12 refs for 5 sentences). A redirect can be an alternative only if it is not abused what seems unlikely to me, and therefore I'm going for delete. Anup [Talk] 15:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails NDIRECTOR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 25 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 14:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Andelin

John Andelin (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)

For the record I actually created this article. I have since come to realize we need stricter controls on Wikipedia content. There is just no evidence that Andelin is widely recognized for his work at a level that would make him a nottable sculptor. 2 of the sources are essentially his website and an add source. The Mormon Times article was written by the LDS Public affiars rep in his stake, and thus has lots of conflict of interest points. The LDS Church News article might go for something, but to establish him as a notable scultor I think we would need more than at best 2 articles about him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I concur like with the other ones here, there's nothing here given there's only 1 trivial published book, and other trivial achievements at that, hence nothing meaningfully significant. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of FHM Philippines

List of people on the cover of FHM Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. - MrX 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - extremely poorly sourced about people, and quite arbitrary. Sagecandor (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why we'd consider this list separate from many others that we find at Category:Lists of people by magazine appearance, which includes other such Lists of people on Fooian cover? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listcruff. Unless FHM is the most widely read publication in the Philippines, it fails notability. FHM does not have the same notability as Time, Vogue, or Harper's Bazaar. I would delete List of people on the cover of FHM (India) too. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:30, 28 November 2016 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yılmaz Özdil

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

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. The subject seems to be a rather ordinary newspaper columnist; there is no significant coverage in third-party sources, and no real claim to notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references currently in the article are either from companies he works for, or are unreliable sources. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable, independant sources to prove GNG. No evidence he meets WP:AUTHOR either. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2016 (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 Idaho gubernatorial election, 2010. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith G. Allred

Keith G. Allred (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)

Allred was only ever a candidate for office, not a holder of office. He does not meet the notability criteria for politicians. The coverage of him in the sources does not rise above routine coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no significance in or outside WP:POLITICIAN and simply nothing else beyond it. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Idaho gubernatorial election, 2010, as is standard practice for unelected candidates running in notable political races. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the election per Cullen328. Being a losing candidate in an election is not grounds for an article in and of itself, unless the person can be shown to clear a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some reason independent of the candidacy (e.g. already having preexisting notability for other reasons.) But that's not shown here. As a gubernatorial candidate rather than a legislative one, however, he is a plausible enough search term that his name should lead somewhere relevant rather than just redlinking. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (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. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ephixa

Ephixa (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 musician, no (or very few) reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO + seems like a promotional article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has released several songs (including singles, remixes and albums) on the ever-growing and popular Monstercat record label, I believe this does not make him fail WP:MUSICBIO and the page will soon get more reliable sources User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2016 (ACDT)

Comment: Which one of the twelve criteria does your claim meets? There's no chart of any single or album (for #2), Monstercat is not a label with many notable performers (for #5), the page was created one year ago and the musician is active since 2007 but still no reliable sources (for #1, #4) - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am refering to #5. Although you said that Monstercat is not notable, I'd say it very much is, as it has several notable performers, some later singed to larger record labels like OWSLA (Notably Marshmello & Slushii). It comes down to who you would define 'notable', maybe someone who is easily recognisable, made it in the top charts or someone who has had tens or hundreds of millions of views on Youtube. Monstercat probably isn't a 'major' record label, but it is an important indie label, with it having a history since 2011, having roster of 72 musicians in the 2016 roster alone and has featured many big names or notable artists such as Seven Lions, Marshmello, Vicetone, Timmy Trumpet, Slushii, San Holo, Pegboard Nerds, Tristam, Jauz, Excision, Aero Chord, SCNDL, Project 46 & Krewella. I belive this makes Monstercat fit the criteria and more importantly, make Ephixa a Notable Artist along side his ever growing fanbase, with James having over 400,000 Youtube Subscribers, over 60,000 Soundcloud followers and over 25,000 twitter followers. - User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2016

Comment: And what about releasing two or more albums? I don't think he released a full-length album under Monstercat, it says self-released in the discography section. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's released two EPs (Matches Remixes EP) & Some Wobbles EP), he has been featured on the Monstercat 5 year anniversary album and has songs released in the following main Monstercat albums: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005,006,007 & 009. He has also been in Going Quantums Hello? Remix EP which was released on Monstercat. He has also released 9 singles on monstercat, all of which has been featured in the albums listed above. I'm sure he has released on Monstercat enough for him to pass #5. Just a quick catch up, I put Some Wobble EP as self released because Ephixa listed it on his website, he doesn't list any songs or EPs he has released on Monstercat on his website. After a quick google search, I have changed this to be correct, which it is released my Monstercat. . - User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (ACDT)

Comment - IMO, your claim to its notability is hyperbole. It's not even close to meeting the criterion and the closing admin will know what to do. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of any debate about whether anything here passes an WP:NMUSIC criterion or not, a person does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because the article claims passage of an NMUSIC criterion: he gets an article only if and when he's the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. The NMUSIC criteria clarify the kinds of things that are accepted as valid claims of notability if they're supported by proper sourcing, but they do not hand the article an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion has been unsourcedly claimed. Out of 36 "sources" in this article, not a single one of them is a valid one — it's almost all Reddit threads and YouTube videos and his own social networking profiles, with no evidence of real media coverage shown at all. No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can source it better than this — but regardless of what NMUSIC criterion an article claims to satisfy, NMUSIC is still not passed until reliable sources are carrying that claim past GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass the WP:MUSIC criteria. Karst (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was little participation and no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vignan Vidyalaya, Rayagada

Vignan Vidyalaya, Rayagada (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)

School that has not received significant and reliable third-party coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rayagada per standard practice for schools below high school level with no exceptional indications of notability: Noyster (talk), 11:14, 21 November 2016 (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 List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Seekers

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

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

Minor fictional element. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete same as Stakeout (Transformers), there aren't enough real sources talking about this to justify an article. ValarianB (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of sources to justify an article as already stated by ValarianB. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. Will defer to other editors if content can be pulled as well. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2016 (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. Up to editors whether to also create a redirect.  Sandstein  13:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stakeout (Transformers)

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

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

Minor characters from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fictional character, covered in only transformers-related sites and media that I can see. Does not have the sources to justify an article. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator, as there appears to be a lack of third-party, reliable sources on this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. Will defer to other editors if content can be pulled as well. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psiram

Psiram (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 don't think this passes WP:WEB. The sources listed are namechecks at best, nothing substantive that's actually about this website apart from a single blog post. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite a few sources: [12]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But reliable? Namechecks don't substantiate notability, of course. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even the links to the parliamentary discussions given to demonstrate notability show only passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 5 December 2016 (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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Griffith (businessman)

Tommy Griffith (businessman) (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)

Most of the refs are not reliable sources or do not contain significant coverage of this individual. He's worked at some notable places, but notability is not inherited. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources here don't hold up--the only valid one, to my eyes, is TechCrunch and it doesn't even mention him. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clearly an overgenerous article caring to specify anything a business job listing would say, and the history itself cares to emphasize this, thus WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (policies) clearly support deletion. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally NN. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2016 (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.