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 02:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Burridge

Christian Burridge (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)

Burridge does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians. Canadiates for the US house do not pass notability guidelines on that alone, nor do county party chairs. Also, the article essentially has no sources except the link that may establish he was county party chair. Definately nothing like a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I concur as our politicians notability is quite clear and there's literally nothing close to it for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-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]

• Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, especially if the resulting article is completely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as does not meet WP:NPOL for significant press coverage. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:50, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bills

Craig Bills (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)

Bills does not meet the inclusion criteria for American football players. He was not notable in college to rate an article, went undrafted and then was on the Eagles practice squad but didn't ever play on their regular team. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all here for the applicable notability and clearly nothing close to it given it's only ever had a college football position. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete I am unable to find any worthy sources to indicate passing WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Sherr

Charles J. Sherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Only sources I could find was local coverage and a press release. Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the same person? There are 6 or 7 sources listed on the page. Additionally, he has won several notable awards. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 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 keep. I'm sick and tired of the keep camp complaining about me not looking into the sources when they are the ones that need to point out why they help assert the subject's notability, because THEY want to keep it. Additionally, I scorn at the very idea of even having to keep a poorly written article in the first place. Go improve this sorry excuse of an article if you want. I'm out after I drop an Expand JP tag. I'm disappointed that Wikipedia's standards have fallen so low nowadays. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Suzuki

Reiko Suzuki (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)

Literally zero references were used in this article, and the filmography only detailed works the subject's been in, without specifically detailing who. It's worse than a credits dump. Only main role is that of V-May from Magical King Granzort. No news articles to assert the subject's notability found. I do not consider the subject as notable, as I think she fails WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:WHYN and WP:BIO. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article just needs expansion with the sources present at ja: wiki [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with sources available, is that proof that the subject is notable? Not necessarily. It could very much be possible that they're just mere cast announcements. Have you analyzed the sources? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - She seems to have made a career mainly voicing old women, which tends to lead to more supporting roles rather than major roles. However, in addition to the role Sk8erPrince listed, she is also part of the main cast of the Nono-chan TV series. So I would say she just barely passes WP:ENT with major rolls in at least two works. Calathan (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just two main roles (in two niche works) is enough to garner your own independent article? What is up with that kind of logic? It doesn't work like that. The Nono series is extremely obscure, given that the subject is not even vaguely mentioned on the article. Having a career mainly voicing as that random old woman in a number of anime doesn't make the subject notable. Are there any strong, reliable sources that actually asserts how notable the subject is? Until those so called reliable sources in the JP article have been verified, there is no way at all that I would deem the subject as notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Nono-chan is a niche work, given that the TV series ran for more than a year, and that the manga has also received a film adaptation by Studio Ghibli (which Reiko Suzuki wasn't in). It isn't well known in the United States (and probably many other countries outside Japan), but that is very different than being niche in its home country. I am of the opinion that just two major roles (and a lifetime of supporting roles), is enough for an article per WP:ENT, but just barely, hence the "weak" keep vote. Calathan (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let's assume that Nono is notable enough on the grounds that it has an adaption done by Studio Ghibli. However, the sheer fact that not even a brief characters list is even made on the main Wikipedia page of Magical King Granzort should reflect how non-notable it is.

By the way, some particular supporting roles could amount to notability, if they're extensively covered in secondary sources. The Bleach captains/lieutenants are good examples of which, as a number of them have their own independent Wikipedia articles:

Renji

Sosuke

Gin

However, none of the subject's roles are nearly as notable as the supporting characters I've listed. They are just that random grandma that doesn't add much to the main story. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per knowledge above. What this needs is attention from a Japanese speaker.--Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has verified whether or not the sources help assert the notability of the subject. I suggest that you don't vote unless you have verified them yourself. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained before to you, this is where WP:BEFORE comes in; "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability as in you have to look at what is out there which includes other wikis. If you need help translating then there are places here to do that for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe users could learn to write a sizable article in the first place through peer editing and assessment before publication so that AFDs like these could be avoided. When all you do is insert a single line and list a (badly written) filmography, it's worse than a credits dump. Whoever created this article is just begging to have their article to get deleted. Research should be done by the article creator and those that wish to expand it. I'm not doing any more research than the basic role analyzation for poorly written articles like these. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then prepare to have the articles kept in AfD discussions. I have seen it more than once where WP:BEFORE is cited as the reason for closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, it's not like I haven't already done basic research for articles I don't care about. Like I said, further research should only be conducted by those that wish to improve the article. I have no intention of achieving that, as I scorn those that can't even learn to write a more sizable article, first. People like those do not deserve my sympathy. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the way it works though, you the nominator need to check the sources before placing the article up for deletion. This isn't "further research" as looking at other wikis can be done with a click of a button on the left side of the article under "languages". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KK87 Has it right. It is up to you, the nominator, to do the due diligence in checking out the sources. Sk8er, please don't take this as an insult, I really don't mean it that way, but you really don't know how to evaluate sources yet, you really should back off of this kind of stuff before you are tbanned. You almost had the tban once.--Adam in MO Talk 03:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to evaluate sources? That isn't for you to decide. You got something to say to me that is unrelated to the notability of this subject, take it to my talk page. Don't try to derail the main topic at hand. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to evaluate sources is germane to this discussion and I have discussed that with you in other places already.--Adam in MO Talk 04:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'd rather you not try to keep an article that literally has zero references (in the Eng wiki). The article creator or anyone that is interested should redo the entire article in English from scratch since they have clearly not read WP:YFA. I scorn anyone that thinks it's ok to ignore that guideline. Seriously, if every contributor has at least sent in their drafts for evaluation before publication, we wouldn't be having discussions like these right now. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that I haven't looked into the JP wiki. I have. And in this case, I don't think it helps with notability at all. The amount of limited notable roles the subject has led me to believe that the subject has not reached our requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this moment. Failure of WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR are all valid reasons for deletion.

You said above yourself "Nobody has verified whether or not the sources help assert the notability of the subject" I take this as you didn't look at the sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't care to look into the sources in detail if I have deemed that even the JP wiki is nothing more than a credits dump. Also, I've demanded you to analyze the sources, since you're the one that says the subject is notable based on the sources in JP wiki. Your statement means nothing unless you have analyzed them yourself. Well then, what's it gonna be? Are you gonna tell me how the subject is notable with the sources available in the JP wiki? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't care for responses such as I demand you, WP:BEFORE clearly states that you have the burden to look at the sources. Nobody is making you do this but it isn't a good argument for deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. Simply making an almost obsolete statement such as "sources are present" without actually determining whether or not they help assert notability shows your inability to make an effective counterargument. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we are going in circles, what part of WP:BEFORE is being read wrong? It is your job as the nominator to check and see if the sources already present are reliable or not. This isn't only applying to you so please don't feel singled out here, it is for any editor that starts an AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that wants to keep the article, so you have to state how X, Y and Z sources help assert the notability of the subject. I, on the other hand, have no desire to keep it. It also helps to know that I've listed two other reasons why I think the article should be deleted. You are free to talk in circles without paying any mind to the two other failures I've listed. I don't mind. Anyway, WP:BIO failure is a very valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. Obviously, if an article is blatantly not ready for publication, it should either be pushed back to userspace or deleted. The latter is a better option, though. It is better because it will serve to teach unthorough contributors what will happen to their half baked work when it is not ready for the mainspace. That's right: Deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how the AfD process works though, you have to put in some effort in seeing if the article can be saved. Not doing so is against WP:BEFORE, and can be seen as a bad faith nomination. As for your other two reasons, those are moot as you refuse to check the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE only applies to an argument where the main concern is notability, as you have stated. By ignoring my other concerns, your counterargument is moot. Please, speak for yourself. I shouldn't have to put in extra effort in saving someone's half baked clustermess. There is absolutely no logic in that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will break down your rationale... No news articles to assert the subject's notability found. I do not consider the subject as notable, as I think she fails WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:WHYN and WP:BIO.................... WP:NACTOR, and WP:WHYN both are under notability issues while WP:BIO is under Notability (people). I would say that yes notability IS the main issue you have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but all you've done up to this stage is point out the existence of sources without actually stating whether or not they are useful. You are also ignoring the fact that the article is poorly written and that it also severely fails WP:WHYN. Maybe if you actually look into everything (and by that, I mean all the failures I've listed), I'll be more inclined to take you seriously. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Knowledgekid87.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You call that well laid out? I mean, sure, why don't you continue supporting the existence of poorly written articles? I'm sure that's very contributive, indeed. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality is not an afd matter in most cases. There are lots of poorly written article but there is no time limit on quality. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Knowledgekid87. --evrik ^(talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Calathan, passes WP:ENT. Despite the nominators outright dismissal of the work as "extremely obscure" because its not known outside Japan, it's clearly a main role for a notable series. The bulk of their roles might be minor, but that's not the issue as people can have long successful careers without being mega famous. Our only concern is do they have enough roles that aren't minor characters. The nominator gave one example. Calathan gave another. That's all we need. If that wasn't enough, the nominator has clearly sabotaged their own nomination by focusing too much on getting the page deleted and not enough on being neutral and capable. As well as making demands of people that he isn't prepared to make of himself. If you are going to demand people do a better job of creating and improving articles, then you need to be able to show you can do the same. Making those demands in an AFD nomination is not constructive. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that merely having two main roles is enough to warrant your own independent article. I am also in complete disapproval of poorly written articles having a place on our encyclopedia in the first place. And, FYI, I did improve several articles that I care about (contrary to popular belief, I am not just a deletionist) - view my list of contributions. Additionally, I am not a hypocrite as well, as I do have people peer review my drafts before submitting them for publication. Oh yeah, I don't just submit my article(s) without having received approval from the admins, first. Take this example, for instance. In any case, I'm withdrawing this nom. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 13 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) 06:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tamosauskas

Sara Tamosauskas (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 the creator of a web series, based entirely on primary sources and blogs with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. Even the few sources here that aren't complete non-starters -- Now, Playback and the CBC -- aren't coverage of her; both Now and the CBC mention the series while entirely failing to mention Tamosauskas at all, while Playback namechecks her existence a single time but still fails to be about her. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every content creator is entitled to an article just because she can be nominally verified as existing -- she must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable web series creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into a stub. Notable enough for at least a stub. Jurnee457 (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote from confirmed sock. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a measure of how sourceable an article is, not of what a person may happen to have done — there is no job that a person can hold that confers a notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to carry it. Even a president of the United States wouldn't get to have an article on here if he somehow managed to hold that role without garnering reliable source coverage for his holding of the role. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronandaussie. Socks don't get !votes here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:39, 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 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 [2] 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. [3]--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 ([4], [5]), 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. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] —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: [13]. 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.