THC Science

< 21 November	23 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Studios

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

WP:MILL production company that was JUST founded. WP:TOOSOON to have any notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising started for exactly that hence there's simply nothing else to suggest close to anything better, especially since we've established such subjects are also going to be heavily involved in anything about them, especially given they're both paying and motivating it, hence delete solves it. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is WP:TOOSOON -- tends to inherit notability from notable founders. Let the production company produces some more notable films and only then one can give it a try. Anup [Talk] 03:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privatoria

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

There are several explanations as to why this shouldn't have been accepted: (1) is that the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing, either coming from the company itself or republishing of it (supposed reviews are coming from indie websites, quite conceivable for such to be either self-authored or paid for), (2) is the fact my own searches are then not finding anything but said sources, especially as I got deeper, (3) is that the history shows it was only started for advertising, since there's no actual significance or anything close it and (4) there's literally nothing else but this, showing how it's simply a blatant advertisement for a newly started company, of which is hoping to use this as a PR webhost. Clearly this is not a case for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG but even if it was, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply which is Wikipedia-founded, not guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a newly started company (founded in 2013) but your other points are valid. I approved the Article for Creation, and was probably wrong to do so.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to indicate notability. The only coverage seems to come from niche review sites with what seems to be limited editorial control. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:59, 16 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 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Feuillassier

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:50, 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 03:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Rodríguez Arnaiz

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:51, 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 00:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Gómez

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination - has only played for underage teams XyzSpaniel Talk Page 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:51, 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. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion - nobody did explicitly oppose a redirect, but only one person did explicitly support it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Segura

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the article's unsourced assertions to the contrary, he has not played in a fully pro league, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:CBALL, article can always be re-created if subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL in future. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father, Antonio Robaina. This is a typical outcome of these AfD's with a non-notable athlete related to a notable one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey), etc. See also Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Mariano Rivera III, and Ryan Ripken, all more non-notable athletes which are redirects to their notable fathers' articles, but were always like that and thus never subject to AfD. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonda Schilling, where she wasn't an athlete, but was well-known enough that some people might have heard of her, though not notable enough to pass WP:GNG, so her article was redirected to her husband's. So there's significant precedent to redirect here rather than delete and I'm curious to know why nobody above considered it. Agree with Sir Sputnik, GiantSnowman and Inter&anthro that he doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY, but he's well-known enough that he's a plausible search term, so it should redirect to his father's article where he's mentioned. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. → Call me Razr Nation 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Razr Nation: Why not redirect given the ample precedent I mentioned above? And if you need yet another example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta. And same question for @GiantSnowman:, @Inter&anthro:, and @Sir Sputnik:, all of whom voted before I pointed out the precedent and may wish to change their vote if they so desire in light of it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 30 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. Malformed nomination, but properly tagged and uncontested, and also plainly justified, in that Dudhra is entirely unsourced. Sandstein 12:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify that it is notable Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 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 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YWCA Metro St. Louis

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

Clear example of WP:BRANCH South Nashua (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and there may be several others in Category:YMCA that should go too. While we find mentions of this branch of the Y in news media, nothing that would satisfy WP:BRANCH. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 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 speedy delete. Appears to be part of a mass spamming campaign in various wikis, creator is blocked on de-wiki, {{WP:Not here]] Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Geutebrück

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

Dubious notability, a minor researcher whose claim of notability seems to rely on having found a gravestone. Reads like a self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its an Movie Actor and Director. Writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottesacker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 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. Sufficient roles that have satisfied notability per the consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Okada

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

ANN search results:

1) Kei Shindo (EF - main)

2) Nozomi Fujimiya (Wind: A Breath of Heart - supporting)

Subject has only one main role, and is not notable enough to warrant her own article. Fails WP:NACTOR. Severe failure of WP:WHYN as well. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is part of the main cast in Ef: A Tale of Memories, Wind: A Breath of Heart, and Sentimental Graffiti, so she passes WP:ENT with multiple major roles in notable works. Furthermore, Hitoshi Doi's seiyuu database lists fairly extensive coverage in anime and seiyuu magazines [1], which would almost certainly allow her to pass WP:GNG (though I'm doubtful anyone here would have those magazines available to actually use them to add to the article). Calathan (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only EF is considered to be notable among the three, given that it has received a dub. Most anime adaptions of visual novels are considered to be not notable. Also, regarding those books, who can actually verify how much the subject is covered in them? Until that has been clarified, due to the subject lacking enough significant roles, and that the JP article being almost a credits dump (the Eng article on the other hand is nothing more than just a credits dump), these concerns all lay the grounds for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving a dub (in English or any other language) has nothing to do with notability. For how much the subject is covered in the magazines, the site I listed indicates the number of pages in each magazine that are about Junko Okada. The ones that are less than a page may not be significant coverage, but the ones with 2+ pages just related to her are much more likely to be significant coverage. Calathan (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is not uncommon to note a work's localization to the west as an assertion of its notability. AFD participants do use it as an argument. Do bear in mind that English is the international language, so localized Japanese media that are imported into the US with an English language dub produced will further increase its notability. Also take note on how Angus dismisses anime adaptions of visual novels as non-notable in this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each VA should be treated independent of the others. I'm merely saying that the visual novels should be notable, have a decent presence on Wikipedia. It doesn't help if the VA has acted in a bunch of minor direct-to-videos or dime-a-dozen visual novels. If she's getting coverage in Japanese magazines, that's going to help her notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes WP:ENT, in addition I have found coverage about this person from Japanese news media [2]. (WP:BEFORE?) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is that article even about, anyway? If you don't mind elaborating, that is. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she was involved in dubbing The Amazing World of Gumball for a Japanese audience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but has the article specified WHICH role the subject is playing? If it's merely a bit role, then it's not an assertion of notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep I wouldn't count Sentimental Journey (anime) as starring as each of the heroines in that series only appears in one episode as a narrator/star, and then that's about it. The video game may be different though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About half the magazine articles on the page I linked to are coverage in relation to Sentimental Graffiti, and Hitoshi Doi's page also lists a radio show related to it. In terms of the amount of attention the role generated, it actually seems like her most significant role. I do think that is more in relation to the game than the anime, since as you point out, each of the main characters is only featured for one episode in the anime. Calathan (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more promising as a lead role in the Sentimental franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But even then, that's just two significant roles. Since when is Wind: A Breath of Heart considered to be notable? I honestly don't think that a voice actor that has only garnered two main roles is enough to warrant her own independent article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's also in the Haru no Ashioto series as one of the main heroines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given her sourced involvement in the promotions for the Sentimental Graffiti franchise and the lead roles mentions above that's enough to meet WP:ENT. Changing vote to keep. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient roles for WP:Ent.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:16, 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Tunnelling Society

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

They're a real organization. There are a few reference in Gnews to them (both in passing.) A surprising number of regular Google hits. The article does read a bit like a PR piece, and the creator's username makes me wonder if there is a COI thus the tag. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may well be COI, but we routinely keep article for major professional organizations. Just leave the sourcing tag in place. I put a proper category on page, Nom or others can click if they want to look at the many similar pages we have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I added a sentence and a solid source from a professional journal. This is an obvious, almost procedural keep. References (mostly stuff like studies, conferences it has sponsored) can be found in searches of scholarly & professional journals. It would be better to have someone actually come in and write a good article. Until that happens, however, I believe that we can keep this article as valid, if sadly brief. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the AfD as keep, please. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:24, 24 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 16:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mphone

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

Delete and Salt please given this was literally deleted last month for advertising and that's exactly what it is, simply considering all of the factors here: (1) the account is clearly an advertising-only account, (2) the source are all entirely trivial and unconvincing, (3) my own searches are not finding anything helpful and (4) for such a new company, and with such blatant and noticeable attempts at advertising, it's basically self-explanatory this is not going to be acceptable and it certainly should not be restarted again, since 2 times of advertising has been excessive as it is.

As it is, we've questioned before, including here at AfD, that such publications (but it seems there's not any for this company), cannot immediately be taken as automatic acceptance since there's obvious payment involved with "publishing news". Not that WP:BASIC or WP:GNG would even apply, WP:NOT is still applicable if anyone asks, since it specifically states "Remove any unsuitable", in this case advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 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 speedy deleted as WP:G11. Just Chilling (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alkor Bio

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:CORP for no independent sources can be found. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found two hits in Gnews, one in English (briefly mentioning the company, looked like a PRNewswire-style site and not reputable) and another in Russian. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely KEEP! Gnews is not legit lol the company has made history in microbiology! it covers decent part of market in developing countries since early 00'! Very few competitors can match their quality for such low prices they have. Come on! You want to delete profile of a company that produce effective low-priced kits for infections diagnostics? That is not even "a company" just a lab that develops tastings for harmful diseases and newborn kids diagnostics. It just supports the budget on low key sales. It takes time to put everything they do at the wiki page. It supposed to be a nice reflection of company's achievements and scientific discovers, not a "price-list" as somebody unreasonably thinks. Good luck to Alkor Bio and the future of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays! ~~Mr. Dmitrii~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.26.2 (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alkor Bio is great!^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.26.2 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Both IPs are the same, one is signed "Mr. Dmitrii" and the creator of the article is User:Dmitrii Onoshko. Also we use consensus, not voting. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. Fails WP:CORP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In fact, why not even a WP:G11 speedy? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fo sure! Are you guys for real here!? That's not SPAM! That's not even a "corporation" tho! Russian famous lab that develops kits for diagnostics of infections, tumor markers and allergies! Deleting is unreasonable! There is not a single legitimate argument against keeping the page! However, Mr. Dmitrii, if they make it dissapear just create the Russian version first! Good luck brother! ~~Mr. Putin~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.152.134 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Не удаляйте! Достойная страница! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.73.49 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note All recent anonymous IPs geolocate to St. Petersburg, home of the company in question, and it's almost certain the same user or meatpuppets. Of course we don't use voting in AfDs anyway. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Shawn in Montreal about concerns of WP:SPAM and also not meeting WP:CORP but instead being mainly for purposes only of promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!. Agree with ~Mr. Putin~! Why discriminate one company!? There are 101 in the category! Check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/category:biotechnology_companies ! Most of them are for sure placed for only one purpose - advertisement! And nobody cares! Is it because they are not Russian!? Again, Alkor Bio shates its R&D results at least. For the sake of scientific and technical progress in the world! If done so, deleting the page would be unreasonable discrimination. Make it in Russian language brother, if it won't work! Good luck! ~~I am from Saint-Petersburg!~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.159.17 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I have in fact tagged as such, G11, and let this be a note to the advertisers here; Wikipedia will not accept advertising as this is not the place for it and we certainly will not accept such similar attempts at Wikipedia, as it too will be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 24 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 Page speedy deleted via CSD G11 RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akilah institute for women

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

PageContested MariaAkilah (talk) 06:37, 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 00:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Australia

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

Purely promotional page created by the company. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although there's a claim of significance, it's a clear thin one since it's only a field that will ultimately consist of PR, hence it's not convincing and it's not a cause for notability, since the sources here are clearly simply trivial and unconvincing, therefore deletion is quite necessary for such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a cookie cutter spam article. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 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 redirect to Educational_technology#Over-stimulation. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Syndrome

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

Non-notable neologism, very few citations or references other than by the inventor. Most searches for "everest syndrome" yield something else. Vectro (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be irrelevant but did you come here from reddit too? Support deletion or merge, btw Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 06:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like jargon known only to a small in-group or clique of teachers and virtually no-one else. I don't think there's sufficient notability to allow for it to be kept or merged. Support deletion. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty plus years in education, many as a leader in classroom tech initiatives. This phenomenon exists but I've never heard it referred to by this term. It may belong in an article discussing technology in the classroom but doesn't seem enough for a separate page. (Yep, reddit TIL) TBoaN (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Educational_technology#Disadvantages or possibly Educational_technology#Over-stimulation. Notability as standalone term not established. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pattinapakkam

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

WP:PROMO page created by WP:COI user. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although created by a COI user, User:Editor 2050 gave his best to rewrite it from a neutral point of view. It does pas WP:NFF since shooting began last year and post-production ended sometime this year, although a release date has not been set. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's nothing wrong with the article - it's just a few editors (probably the technical crew/director himself) who make changes to reflect what they want. They obviously have little idea of the usual templates/precedent used for such articles. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Where is the significant coverage in "multiple" reliable sources? Just because a film is in post-production stage doesn't make it auto eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia. This one seems to be only reliable source about this film (trivial coverage). I tried but couldn't find anything useful about this film and whatever is in the article doesn't help film to reach the WP:GNG standard. The article is currently nothing but an WP:OR toned-down.

I'm open to change my !vote if anyone can find the requisite sources. Anup [Talk] 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added several articles that show it meets GNG. All came out in the past week or so, so hopefully it should be fine now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good now, Wikimandia did a fine job adding more sources and I see no major issues with the article at this moment. Sro23 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Sufficient neutral secundary sources to meet WP:GNG. I see no problems caused by a COI in the content of the article. -- Taketa (talk) 11:12, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liv3ly

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

Fails WP:WEB. No reliable sources are available, the fact that this has recieved certain awards is entirely trivial - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising and it's as simple as that, simply given the sheer fact everything here is only what they would advertise about themselves, and there's no notability, substance or genuine significance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duplicate article was created as LIV3LY. Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Lesotho

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

Not a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL and list contains barely any notable hotels. Ajf773 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Delete - totally redundant list; the category is sufficient Spiderone 20:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTPURP, esp. the navigation element. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Well Foundation USA

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

Literally a trivial and unconvincing article, and it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC since, not only are the listed sources trivial and unconvincing, I've found exactly the same, and that's not surprising since there's simply nothing for actual notability and substance; the history itself suggests this may have been started for business listing uses as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no indication that this article went through the AfC process: the history simply shows it being developed as a draft on Nov 19th and then moved to mainspace on the 20th. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The article text predominantly concerns public discussion on the high proportion of this organisation's fundraising which goes to administration. My searches find only more similar coverage (New Orleans CityBusiness 2014 "Metairie-Based Wish-Granting Nonprofit Spends Little on Goal" – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). Leaving aside public-service arguments, which are not appropriate for either positive or negative coverage, there may be a question of whether the accumulation of negative coverage is evidence of notability, but as it stands I think this is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable for being a borderline scam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in both USA Today and Tampa Bay Times satisfies WP:GNG. Significant scams are notable if they generate sustained coverage, which appears to be present. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 16 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 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Verma

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

I browsed most of the "sources" are none of them should count towards notabiloty. They're either profiles made for a conference/website or brief quotes, with one exception (the Economic Times article, where the subject of this article still isn't the focus.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, per nomination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about non-notable subject. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Promotional puffery - references are largely not independent - Arjayay (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Have updates the article and it's not a promotional activity , refernces are given as per their involvement in the area - smithtony (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as clear advertising and nothing else to call it, since even the sources themselves are simply published-republished advertising, that's enough for deletion especially given the repeated times now. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 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 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Kathmandu

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

Not a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL and list contains barely any notable hotels, Wikilinks (if any) direct to hotel chain articles. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slightly promotional language as well. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an example of WP:PROMO and WP:NOTTRAVEL Spiderone 13:11, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alquifou

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

The sentence in the article now is all of the info I could find on the topic. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Has already been moved to Wiktionary Ajpolino (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added "See also" section, subject bar, pottery template, pottery category; created Talk page. Added links to this article to better integrate into WP encyclopedia. Uncertain if this is enough to prevent deletion. Will ask for help on wikiproject talk pages. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another name for galena according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/alquifou. This term doesn't appear to have any independent notability: the only reference for the content in the article is over 100 years old, so is not necessarily accurate today. Maybe galena needs an "Alternative names" section. Otherwise the Wiktionary entry is appropriate. —SMALL JIM 14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete or perhaps merge to the currnet name for the mineral. We have nothing here but an imprecise dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward B. Kramer

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

Fraudulent spam for non notable individual bombarded with dud references, primary sources, quotes from him and faked verification. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing wrong with this article. Kerm1120 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Competence is required. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because its self-promoting doesn't qualify it for deletion. It means you should remove the language inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - he appears to meet my standards for notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian. Keeping in mind your standards stated need for verification, which part of your essay do you contend is satisfied? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my essay is satisfied insomuch as meeting these four factors: 1, law review editor and author; 2, argued a precedental case, Watterson v. Mallard Bay; 3, called by media to comment on issues for which he is an expert; 4, member of the bar of SCOTUS. Verification: 1, named author at link for law review article; 2, named in case header (as "Ed Kramer"); 3, at least 2 Business Review articles (again, as "Ed Kramer"); 4, SCOTUS keeps the names of all counsel, e.g., here. So he clearly passes my standards. Whether these, however, violate the rule against using primary sources is an altogether different question; the article might have to be deleted for want of secondary sources, and I leave that issue to the closing sysop. I hope that answers your question. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. your essay says "a leading editor", not an author. Kramer is not an editor. If you are expanding to all authors then this essay becomes ridiculously broad (and IMO is already too broad). 2. your essay says nothing about precedence. To include every lawyer who participated in a case considered " Precedential" is ridiculously broad. (and did he argue it). 3. Called on by the media is not mentioned in your standard. 4. your standards state under non-notability "Admission to the Supreme Court of the United States is not notable enough." On the verification 1. Author only, not editor. 2. Huh? really? 3. What 2 "Business Review articles". Commenting to the media does not make you an expert. So no, it does not answer my question. It does however raise another. Why are you dropping your standards to try keep this disgusting piece of fraudulant promotion? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that he wasn't an editor on law review, and I don't see that I'm lowering my standards. In any case, I don't know the guy and I won't insist on keeping this page. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Missing in the citations and doesn't seem notable from what I located online. -- Dane ^talk 05:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried cleaning this article up, finding out what info was cited sources, and what other information was out there. There are NYT articles for a person of that name, but he was made senior VP of Dime Savings Bank - and there's no mention of a banking career history in this article.

It seems like the claim-to-fame is a case that went before the Court of Appeal in Louisiana, that he's a real estate developer, and had been quoted several times about his opinion of the housing market. He is on the board of the Baton Rouge Growth Coalition, so that's good. But, I am not seeing anything close to "significant" coverage, and when he's covered, it's generally a few sentence quote. I also don't see attainment of a very notable event in his career. So, all that said, it seems that there the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N guidelines.

Bearian, Regarding SCOTUS, are we sure it's the same Ed Kramer? Because the article said that the case brought before the Supreme Court was Watterson v. Mallard Bay, but the writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court was turned down - that case wasn't heard by the state or federal Supreme Court as far as I can tell. With the bloating in this article, if it was the same Ed Kramer on the No. 10–708, First American Financial Corp., Successor in Interest to First American Corp, surely it would have been in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ed Kramer that tried the case before the Supreme Court was an attorney at the Fair Housing Law Clinic at Cleveland Marshall College of Law. There is a picture of him there in 2011 - he would have had to have changed a lot since the 2006 photo in this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is for this case. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 10 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 12:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arik Bjorn

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

Candidate for national office in the US. Nearly all news coverage is pretty standard political candidate coverage, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES a candidate who ran in a national election but was defeated does not get inherent notability. Wrote some books but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. His other activities don't appear to qualify him for normal notability standards from WP:BIO. His plans for running for future office fall under WP:FUTURE - he can get an article if he becomes notable then. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I make the case that the previous Democratic Party nominee, Rob Miller, has a Wikipedia entry? And Arik Bjorn's candidacy had some notable history connected to it, including the fact that he is only the second candidate in history to be endorsed pre-primary by the SC Democratic Party. Also, he is a rare fusion candidate, and one of the most successful Green Party congressional candidates in history. Also, Mr. Bjorn has a very wide international reading audience: readership in over 185 countries. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to make a case for inclusion. Kb32 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's certainly possible that Miller might not actually be eligible for an article either, but Miller and Bjorn each have to be evaluated on the merits or demerits of their own articles, and not on "if one has an article then the other one automatically has to have one too". Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought to consider is that Wikipedia provides a Infobox category called "Congressional Candidate," which would seemingly presuppose that certain congressional candidates merit article inclusion. Again, Mr. Bjorn's congressional candidacy has very unique components associated with it--certainly no less of importance than Mr. Miller, a previous candidate to unseat Congressman Wilson. Kb32 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

Some responses. First, on Mr. Miller - that's not an argument for inclusion, see WP:OSE for an explanation (note that isn't policy, it's unofficial, but it's still a good read as to why that argument is a non-starter.) Second, he still needs notability - you can read WP:BIO but being the first X or most successful Y doesn't make you inherently notable; you can read Electoral fusion for much more notable candidates that ran under multiple parties, many successfully elected and thus meeting notability guidelines. He has to meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", and in this editor's opinion the coverage you cited is pretty standard fare on national-level candidates - it doesn't meet the significant bar. Last, WP:AUTHOR states the guidelines for being notable as an author; being read in a large number of countries is not a factor, especially in an era when my edits can be read by almost anyone. If he meets one of the other standards in WP:BIO, add it to the article and note it here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bjorn is also the recipient of the Innoventure Przirembel Prize, "which recognizes collaborations across diverse organizations and promotes best practices in open innovation building a greater sense of identity of the Southeastern United States as an innovation powerhouse in the world." One simply cannot state enough the import of the South Carolina SmartState Program in the success of the South Carolina economy, a program which Mr. Bjorn led for nearly a decade. The program was called "the best program of its kind in the U.S., and that which should be the envy of all other states" by a Washington Advisory Group panel that included the formed Director of Technology at Microsoft and the former President of The Ohio State University. Mr. Bjorn was also recognized by former Queensland Premier Dr. Peter Beattie at 2013 BIO in Washington DC for his outstanding work in helping to place South Carolina on the knowledge economy map. Mr. Bjorn has played significant roles in the political, economic development, literary and arts community in South Carolina for nearly a decade. (In addition to all the other things mentioned, he has had major roles in numerous major theatre productions and written extensively at the local level, in addition to his internationally-read pieces.) It is hard to imagine someone with more influence and impact across the broad spectrum of public life in Midlands South Carolina. Please do seriously consider this article for worthy inclusion on Wikipedia. (And if my earlier foibles at article entry have whatsoever negatively impacted the article's chances for inclusion, I truly apologize.) Kb32 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

Response I did a Google News search for Innoventure Przirembel Prize and found nothing, so I don't think winning a prize that's non-notable in and of itself would help his case. Being a member of a panel that included notable people also does not make him notable, please see WP:INVALIDBIO. Being active in local theater productions does not make him notable just because of that, see WP:CREATIVE. I mean no offense, but there are numerous people who have a laundry list of things they've done but that does not confer notability; we have guidelines which you are encouraged to read at WP:BIO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can one easily identify 10 non-presidential Green Party candidates who received more votes than Mr. Bjorn in an election? I would venture Mr. Bjorn is one of the most successful third party congressional candidates in modern U.S. history--is he not? Kb32 (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

Response First, see WP:OSE. Second, the party isn't relevant towards notability; we don't list the top 10 non-presidential Reform/Libertarian/Conservative/etc. party candidates just because they made the top 10 for their particular party, that's not part of notability guidelines for politicians. Third, if you are going to mention successful third party congressional candidates in recent history, Bernie Sanders pretty much towers over all of them in his impact on the US political arena. See Third party officeholders in the United States to find that being an independent isn't all that big a deal. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the most successful third party congressional candidates" so long as you exclude the third-party candidates who have won seats and thereby held office, surely? Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he already qualified for an article under some other notability criterion independent of his candidacy (e.g. preexisting notability in another field of endeavour, already having held a different notable political office, etc.), then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get over WP:NPOL. Our role on Wikipedia, when it comes to politics, is to keep and maintain articles about holders of political office, not necessarily every candidate for it — some candidates in some circumstances can be notable for other reasons besides the candidacy itself, but the candidacy itself is not a valid reason for an encyclopedia article. And the number of votes a person did or didn't get in the process of not winning the seat makes no difference, either. But this makes no credible claim that he had any preexisting notability, and the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG anyway: it's far too dependent on primary sources and blogs, with not nearly enough evidence of reliable source coverage. As noted, Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) may not actually be eligible to keep that article either — but that will have to be determined by evaluating his article for whether he has a credible claim of notability or not, as neither article has any bearing on whether the other article is keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for US congress are not notable for this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 24 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. I understand the article creator's frustrations about having difficulties with research due to poor internet infrastructure. At the moment, the article doesn't fit with Wikipedia's need for WP:GNG. Later, when better sourcing is available, the article can be re-created by visiting WP:REFUND. Joyous! | Talk 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pangasinan Solid North Transit, Inc.

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we instead improve the article? Pangasinan Solid North is a prominent bus company in the Philippines. I can participate to improve the page, just give the article a chance to have the nomination for deletion be lifted at the moment. Bumbl_loid 07:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Added some secondary and tertiary links to the article. Give me time to add more links and edits to the article to have the article restored. Bumbl_loid 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Kindly see the talk page of the article for updates. I see why the nomination was done. Talk:Pangasinan Solid North Transit, Inc. Bumbl_loid 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Comment - @Bumbl loid: Paperblog.com and Indagupan are not reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Can you consider to give me enough time to search for more sources? Unfortunately here in the Philippines, the most internet domains here are poorly maintained and only mostly here are run by WordPress and Blogspot which both aren't qualified for Wikipedia's Encyclopedic sources. Bumbl_loid 06:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 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 merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut. Rather than fully merge the article, it has been redirected, a history merge is achievable, however, if warranted. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island)

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

After careful consideration, I believe this article is not necessary. This article is effectively a fork of the history sections of Interstate 84 in Connecticut and U.S. Route 6 in Rhode Island. Those two articles are incomplete currently and the information contained in this article would, with a little work, improve both the I-84 and US 6 articles. –Fredddie ™ 03:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut. Article is about a planned highway . VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, per WP:SKCRIT #1, this is a request for merger, not deletion. Deletion of the article would make the stated aims of the nomination (improvement of the I-84 and US 6 articles) very difficult, as the information to be merged would no longer be available to non-admins. Antepenultimate (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut or Interstate 384; speedy keep rationale WP:SKCRIT #1 doesn't apply as the nomination does "advance an argument for deletion or redirection" (emphasis added), and a merger is a form of redirection. Imzadi 1979 → 13:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally the next words of SKCRIT #1 apply directly to this nomination - the full quote, though it's of course too late to do much now: The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging (emphasis added). I still don't see the point of bringing this to AFD, no-one will vote delete because there is no deletion rationale provided (or intended), so now everyone gets to vote "merge" (or maybe, "don't merge") and wouldn't it have just been quicker to start a WP:MERGE discussion at the article? Ah well, no harm done, but I still feel this was absolutely eligible for speedy keep and putting it through AFD is a waste of time. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut. The history of the former planned routing of I-84 from Hartford to Providence can easily be covered in the history section of this article. Dough4872 15:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as the creator of the article and most of the content, I just clarify if moved, it may end up scrapping the {{jctint}} table that will have to go most likely in the article to make any sense, but it would look heavily out of place.—JJBers|talk 17:12, 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. Consensus, ; it was in addition written by a banned sockpuppet of a promotional editor( just before they were banner--so it isn't a speedy) DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProspectsPLUS!

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

Literally nothing of genuine substance for independent notability and there's literally nothing to genuinely mistake it as otherwise, everything listed is simply published and republished advertising for and by the company itself, searches unsurprisingly found this, and this author, as it is, was involved in a multi-account advertising campaign. Normally, I would've simply PRODed but given the blatancy of restarting advertisements, I wouldn't be surprised if we'll need G4 later. Thus, together with this, WP:NOT clearly applies when what will equally apply is WP:BASIC or WP:GNG as those are not policy, unlike WP:NOT which is. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a blocked sockpuppet on a firm which produces mailshot material. Neither inclusion in a list of largest revenue firms in its local area nor as number 3,348 in an Inc5000 list of fastest-growing companies is indicative in itself of encyclopaedic notability. Nor is the coverage referenced into the article or found by search showing evidence that this is more than a firm going about its business routine. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 07:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 02:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akaga

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

Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources aren't difficult to come by [3] [4] [5]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG. Google search provides quite a number of reliable source, although most are not in English. CBS527^Talk 04:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh! 06:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Nurse Nakamura

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be hard to find articles on the net since she retired in 2000, but in 2015, Nikkan Gendai, one of the major evening newspapers, did a quite lengthy article on her career and current life: [6]. Looking at the table of contents of Shukan ProWres, the main prowrestling magazine in Japan, it also seems she was a regular feature of articles in the mid-90s, [7], [8], [9], etc., though I can't access them. It would seem she was notable in the professional wrestling world at the time. Michitaro (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is your command of the Japanese language, Meatsgains? ... even just the image search suggests the normal non-trivial (and incomprehensible-to-me) following one sees in professional wrestling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While an image search does not qualify one as being notable, looks like she is in fact covered in Japanese and English sources (as Michitaro pointed out). I do not speak Japanese FYI :) Meatsgains (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:02, 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 02:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Burridge

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 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

(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

(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 [10]. - 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:24, 7 December 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

(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

(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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 22 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 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 14:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ashdown

(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 [11] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 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. 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 22 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. [12]--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

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

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

Non-notable 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 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 Move and redirect as suggested. Sandstein 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 2017 Mediterranean Games

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Savitt

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 22 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 16:18, 29 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 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. Meets WP:ACTOR per consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Bailey

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 22 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeShawn Snow

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 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 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

(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 ([13], [14]), 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 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. Soft delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Bill Colorado

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - No activity on this AfD yet besides nom. -- Dane ^talk 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:23, 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. Joyous! | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lili de Hoyos Anderson

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 29 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. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] —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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 22 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 22 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:22, 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 redirect to Idaho gubernatorial election, 2010. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith G. Allred

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 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

(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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 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 redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Seekers

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 29 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)

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 29 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

(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: [22]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 29 November 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)

(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.

^ http://www.tecan.com/hubfs/Tecan_Journal/201401/12_13_Faster_and_more_reliable_screening_for_cystic_fibrosis_mutations_012014.pdf

[1] ttp://www.tecan.com/hubfs/Tecan_Journal/201401/12_13_Faster_and_more_reliable_screening_for_cystic_fibrosis_mutations_012014.pdf

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend Studios}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privatoria}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Feuillassier}}

Revision as of 08:27, 22 November 2016

Leave a Reply