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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McConnell

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - He's a popular tech journalist in Canada who breaks a lot of stories and makes frequent appearances in mainstream media here, but people won't know him unless they are actually from here. Was trying to find more information after seeing him on TV and there wasn't a central place that had all of this, so in my opinion a page should be warranted. The6Editor (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - none of the reasons you cited are valid reasons for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please read WP:N and WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage about him, not by being the bylined author of media coverage about other things. But right across the board, the latter kind of "referencing" is what we have here for media sourcing — all of the sources where he's the subject are either primary sources (e.g. his own LinkedIn profile and town council meeting minutes) or blogs, which count for nothing toward getting somebody over a notability criterion. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a journalist is entitled to have an article just because he can be verified as existing; he must be the subject of reliable source coverage which verifies a claim that would pass WP:JOURNALIST, but nothing here passes that standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Yang

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

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

This article is being written by User:Superego who has stated they are being directed by Superego see Superegomanagement. It is promotional in tone and may not meet Notability VViking_TalkEdits 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the article falls short of the level of blatant spam that would justify speedy deletion, it is still clearly promotional in character (created by an editor working for Mindy Yang's management company). Also, despite the attempt to give the impression of notability by bombarding the article with references, notability is not demonstrated. Some of the references are not substantially about Mindy Yang, some are clearly promotional. (Perhaps the single most blatant example is a reference to a page at the website www.psfk.com, the "about" page of which is full statements such as "Our reports provide insights into trends driving creative business and our audiences access thought leadership from pioneers at our events. PSFK Labs, our consulting service, provide corporations with trends-led strategy, concepting, content and delivery", which is elaborate marketing-speak for saying that they market businesses.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are hardly any good secondary sources providing significant coverage. I mean the most significant one I could find was Ex-lover accused of stealing boutique owner’s social media domains -NYPost which I don't think I would add to the article anyway. Other sources such as Guardian contain only a quote by the subject. I guess this is WP:TOOSOON. In addition, the promotion by article creator Superego is not acceptable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:49, 14 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 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Farman

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

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

This article was previously deleted by AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Curtis (footballer). Though five years have passed, the underlying notability issues remain the same. 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) 15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 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) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:52, 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.  Sandstein  13:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Schwartz

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

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

WP:BIO, no updates since tag placed in August 2016 Jsmith206 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Very little info on her, per the first nomination for deletion. Delta13C (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are not enough sources out there to expand the article. Her bio section is only supported by her own website, and the rest of the article is basically a back and forth between her quack claims and criticism of them. Delta13C (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also closing editor statement: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I understand the interest in improving the page, however biographies on Erika Schwartz from reliable sources do not exist. The current citations are snippets likely placed by publicity teams. Consequently, since the last AFD request, there have been no valuable additions to the page despite the maintenance tag (refimprove) in August. Thus, attempts to find reliable sources to verify have failed. In the last AFD, editors felt that Schwartz fails to meet the relevant notability guideline; she lacks significant in-depth coverage from reliable sources (WP:BIO). This combination seems to warrants deletion. Morganglick (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG with extensive coverage on her and her work from sources like the New York Times, the Daily Mail, USA Today, CBS News and others. [1][2][3][4]--Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that are proving her "notability" violate several rules of Wikipedia.
  • 1. One source links to ProQuest which violates WP:ELREG. There is also a WSJ article that also violates WP:ELREG[5][6]

• • 2. The first NY Times article (BOOKS ON HEALTH, Standing up for Nature) is a page about her book, rather than establishing biographical facts [7].

• • 3. The springerlink resource is from 2007 which speaks to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS [8].

• • 4. Finally, there is a WP:ELDEAD link in the article. They have linked to an archived version on Web Archive but the original link is still dead [9]

• • 5. Her personal website is used as a resource, when it does not support the statement at all [10]

At a glance, these support WP:GNG, but once investigated do not prove her notability. Once you remove these sources, and the statements that go along with them, she loses WP:GNG Jsmith206 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are only speaking of some of the sources in the article at time of AfD, not the additional ones presented here and a couple of other ones in the article that establish notability (except the NYT one which I'll get to). WP:Notability makes it explicitly clear that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. That something like her personal website is used as a source is just a red herring. It's the existence of qualifying sources that count to notability, not possible flawed sources in the article at time of AfD. For the WP:ELDEAD issue, WP:GNG makes it very clear that the sources don't need to be available online. As for the NYT book review, that the New York Times reviewed her book is further coverage on her and her work and further indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, You only added here two sources that are not cited in the article. The first one of these is the Daily Mail piece which is low quality because it represents churnalism, rather that in-depth coverage independent of the subject. The other one you added here is the USA Today article which is barely anything more than the result of her book publisher running a press junket, which does not add any relevant biographical information. There still remains a severe lack of sources that cover her at the level needed to write even a minimal BLP. Delta13C (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second look at that Daily Mail article and I see it is really in depth. Your original research speculation that journalist Frances Hardy is just copying a press-release is noted - by the way, without any evidence of such, you just committed a WP:BLP violation - but the coverage of this person demonstrates there is a high amount of sources. --Oakshade (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is established from in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources, which this page lacks. The sources do not show recognition from the medical community, but rather the press as a result of promotional activity (around her book releases). Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete' - as said by Techwikikitty above, notability is established through coverage in reliable sources sufficient to provide enough data for a standalone article. There might be sufficient sourcing for an article on one or more of her books, or her theory or theories, but not so far as I can see on the lady herself. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably a great person and very capable in her vocation, but authoring some non-notable books don't make you notable. I'm not seeing the significant coverage that is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are not enough sources and that introduces tensions between two competing imperatives: WP:BLP versus WP:NPOV. Any article needs to be absolutely clear that her ideas are bogus, but we cannot do that without overwhelming the scant biographical data there is and ending up as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang the reality-based consensus on bioidentical hormones. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FC Nelson

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

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

Previously deleted. Still fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no indication this club meets WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Griffin's Sound Chaser

Art Griffin's Sound Chaser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is premature. I wish the band all the best but currently, they have only released a single and have not yet generated sufficient media coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 20:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 20:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All sources are social media - Facebook. I am unable to find any evidence of RS coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Jbh^Talk 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A band does not get a Wikipedia article so long as the sourceability is limited exclusively to their own social media profiles — it takes reliable source coverage, in media independent of their own PR machine, to get a band in the door here. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As for my own view, I found no reliable sources to support this article. Looks closer to A7-speedy bait, actually. --Finngall ^talk 15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As cited above, article lacks independent third party sources, only self-generated references. Such an obvious case for deletion that I'm surprised it has required numerous relistings for over a month. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:07, 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. Wikipedia is not responsible for proving/disproving advanced mathematical equations, but we do note that few others have commented on it in widely-read works on the subject. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of infinitely extended particles

Theory of infinitely extended particles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fringe theory presented as if it's the best thing ever. Legitimate sources are cited, but have no relevance to the subject of the article. Dukwon (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, and it definitely fails the sniff test. The references are red herrings, reliable in their own right but having nothing to do with the article itself. The article itself even states that the theory has only been referenced by two other individuals since its conception. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. I am also concerned that the article on the subject's creator, Mahmoud Hessabi, seems to be a eulogy of a non-notable academic, rather than a reliably-sourced biography of encyclopedic value. I believe this should also be nominated for deletion. The biography article describes the subject's paper on "continuous particles" as "classic", and yet a Google scholar search returns almost no hits. Via "What links here", it seems that there is a walled-garden of non-notable Iranian scientists, e.g., Alenush Terian. This whole area needs some pruning, I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons described by PrimeFac and Dukwon. --Steve (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability. Dilaton (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW and as not even wrong. I am something of an amateur scientist, and this strikes me as nonsense. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses to the Delete Requests

The page should be kept for the reasons below:

->Dukwon 1) This theory is neither claimed to be "the best thing ever" nor "fringe theory". This was your own impression. It is only a different approach and mathematical formalism, and is capable of reproducing some useful results.

->Primefac 2) Naming references first as "red herrings" and then irrelevant does not explain how a theory should not work.

->Sławomir Biały 3) Calling the writing as an "eulogy of a non-notable academic" and referring to "walled-garden of non-notable Iranian scientists" is a very inappropriate means to evaluate a mathematical model. This is not the domain of politics, nationalism, or heroism. You may dislike the deceased author, or hate a nation, or tend to disregard your unfavored non-notables, for whatever reason you personally might have. But this is science based on clear mathematics, and not being referred to as "classic". Where did you find it on this page ?!. Better to check the derivation steps out yourself, and tell if calculations are wrong instead. The "only two" citations are quite correct as claimed.

->Steve 4) Answered in the above

-> Dilation 5) Is "Insufficient notability" how you deal with mathematics?

-> Bearian 6) Referring to the [3] on arxiv, it is actually falsifiable, and hence a valid scientific claim. There are some physical assumptions, mathematical derivations, and then predictions. Some predictions agree to within the accuracy of present-day experiments, some may not. Using "Not even wrong" is wrong here.

In summary, if anybody out there feels inconvenient about this theory and Wikipedia post, then it would be nice to disprove it mathematically through a fair scientific approach, than to humiliate and take prejudice in someone. Exposing a less known methodology increases chances for critical evaluations in future, corrections to the known theories. This is what science is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.177.67 (talk • contribs)

Disproving or proving unproven scientific theories is not consistent with Wikipedia's aims. In fact, there is a policy against original research. If this theory is important and significant enough for an encyclopedia article, it would be discussed extensively in independent secondary sources. The lack of secondary sources implies that it is not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article devoted to it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Unless some other independent and reliable academic source has proved it, for our purposes, it is not verified. I'm not sure the proponent of this article understands what Wikipedia is, and is not. Therefore, it is not even wrong as far as we are concerned. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., arXiv is notable, but is not technically peer-reviewed. With 8,000 entries added each month, much of what's on arXiv is run of the mill. Any previously published scientist can post anything new on that website. In any case, by definition, arXiv is a primary source. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 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. WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Globe Australia 2016

Mrs Globe Australia 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The annual edition of the pageant did not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. Popular pageants in Australia like Miss Universe Australia and Miss World Australia does not have annual articles (but necessary due to multiple reliable sources). There is no need for a series of redirects as the article starts with "Mrs Globe". The winners of the previous editions were already indicated in the parent article, Mrs globe australia. The content of the article was written in promotional way. Richie Campbell (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since the nomination for deletion the following reference links have beed added to credible news sources to satisfy the original WP:GNG requirements. 1. http://falanga.com.au/makedonkata-hristina-mrs-australia-globe-2016-gostinka-na-makedonskiot-festival-vo-viliamsteon# 2. http://mountevelyn.mailcommunity.com.au/epaper/ 3. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/hiphop-artist-chico-johnson-works-with-schools-in-melbourne-to-share-positive-message/news-story/e29bcd1f523f0edcfdda678a70e0615f 4. http://eleutheranews.com/?p=1140 5. Link to verify existence of National print edition Newspaper The Latin Australian times https://www.facebook.com/latinaustraliantimes/photos/a.168362370239277.1073741828.154927351582779/201515620257285/?type=3&theater

As the WP:GNG have been addressed... the new issue raised now in the second attempt to delete is that the article is written in a promotional way, Every word in this article has been published in the news sources contained in the references. Lastly the importance of having the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 separate article is because of the news coverage as it is the 20th anniversary of the pageant. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Just Added another reference to article as mentioned new news stories are still appearing http://prwire.com.au/pr/64311/former-ms-australia-s-second-chance-to-represent-at-mrs-globe-pageant-in-china (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Richie Campbell (talk) Why don't you nominate this page also for deletion which I wrote it is basically like Mrs Globe Aust 2016=>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Latin_America_2016 I wont wont try and stop you go for it be my guest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Latin_America_2016 it will be another notch on your belt. You've contributed so many years to wikipedia you deserve some satisfaction. I don't have anymore time to write wikipedia pages then spend hours arguing to have them not deleted. Good luck muchacho (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to satisfy notability, at least it does now. Writing style is no basis for deletion (if it was millions should be deleted). Aoziwe (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Aoziwe: Did you individually check if the sources meet the definition of WP:RS? The article was nominated for deletion since No SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. Most of the entries in the article are more appropriate for the parent article, Mrs Globe Australia . In addition, the winner was already indicated in the Mrs Globe Australia. The candidates were not notable since they did not even win a notable state level pageant. Take note that the winners of state level in Miss USA pageant are being deleted for being not notable.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to learn here if you can help. Can you help with:

• Which sources are not reliable and why?
• State level deletions? Why? My benchmark is NCRICKET. It allows one appearance at state level, that is top domestic level, even if that appearance is a complete failure. (I do not agree with this standard but that is what it is.) So why delete state level beauty pagent articles for the individual contestants?

Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • At Australianblackbelt, you can check the contributions (AfD) related to beauty pageants of editors just like John Pack Lambert, SwisterTwister, or K.e.coffman to enlighten you a bit about this--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable beauty pageants among many and WP:PROMO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not remarkable beauty pageant and I agree, it's a WP:PROMO article.--Artchino (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At Aoziwe Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

• This source is a National print newspaper https://www.facebook.com/latinaustraliantimes/photos/a.168362370239277.1073741828.154927351582779/201515620257285/?type=3&theater
• Several of the finalsits have beed fetured in articles form print newspapers
• This is a National beaty pageant it is not state level and it is the 20th anniversary
• Every word is stated in RELIABLE newspaper articles they are referenced to.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• NOTE that Australianblackbelt who voted keep above is the creator of the article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I originally nominated. Take into account that information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article, see WP:RSCONTEXT. The article MUST be deleted since the annual edition of the pageant did not received in-depth or SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. The references provided by the creator of the article were synthesized below:

The first reference is not about the Mrs Australia Globe 2016 beauty pageant but mainly about the First Macedonian Festival and Mrs Australia Globe 2016 was mentioned by passing as guest and not an in-depth article about the coverage of the pageant.

The second reference is Press Release WIRE which is not a reliable source. The press release article has been removed/expired.

The third reference is about the alleged Latin Australian Times article which is a photo of the newspaper posted in Facebook where the text cannot be read. Wiki articles must contain reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.

The fourth reference is about Mrs Globe NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016.

The fifth reference is about the Non-Profit organization CheekyMac Charities held “Briland’s Be Your Best Talent Quest”. Totally no mention about the subject of the article and not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016.

The sixth reference is about the Hip-hop artist Chico Johnson who works with schools in Melbourne to share positive message. Not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant.

The seventh reference is a community ePaper - Mt Evelyn Mail - 13th December 2016. The creator of the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 article specified in the cited reference that it’s on the front page titled “Dominating the Globe", but nowhere to be found. The front page talked about the “Equal View of Life”. I checked the search engine of the ePaper with the title cited but it says “Sorry, but the requested resource was not found on this site.”

The eighth reference is not a reliable source whose content is largely user-generated. Nevertheless, the article is about “Mrs UK Globe Classic” not a coverage of the Mrs Australia 2016 beauty pageant.

The ninth reference titled "Not with those boobs,darl!" is a promotional magazine. Anyway, it’s not coverage about the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant. Try looking at the link here: http://www.take5mag.com.au/

The tenth and eleventh references were about another pageant called, Mrs Globe Classic (NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016) which is another pageant of the same organizer and was also created by the Australianblackbelt. The Mrs Globe Classic was deleted via AfD consensus.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE that Richie Campbell has attempted to falsley acuse me of being a sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Duckgo111#Suspected_sockpuppets

This reference was not mentioned in his critique: http://www.starweekly.com.au/lifestyle/from-behind-the-lense-a-real-beauty/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have noted this reference above (fourth reference). However the article talks more about the Mrs Globe pageant, then Ms Lucia Hou who recently won the people’s choice award at the Mrs Globe Australia pageant (did not win the the main title) and she also won Mrs Coral Sea. This reference is more appropriate for Mrs Globe or may be used for Mrs Globe Australia.--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE The journalist that wrote the article has been contacted through facebook and she has gladly posted it on the Latin Australian Times Facebook Page so Ritchie can see it and read it for himself. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1181809865271749&set=o.154927351582779&type=3&theater (Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

If the article is posted directly in the Latin Australian Times website, the article may be used as a source for the parent article, Mrs Globe Australia which is a weak wiki article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A National newspaper which is print may be used as a source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

This is an English Wikipedia, you can provide translation of the content of the article with verification that it was accurately translated (e.g., google translate) then you can use the article as source for the parent article, Mrs Globe Australia since the parent article lacks third party reliable sources and with questionable notability. Based on the analysis above the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 is not a significant annual edition of the pageant (see sources synthesized). If it is significant why is it very, very hard to find MULTIPLE reliable sources with in-depth sources. Take a look at Miss USA 2016, or even Miss Universe 2016 which has not happened yet but there are MULTIPLE (hundreds) of third party reliable sources or even Miss Earth 2016 article which has a lot of fancrufts but you can find many reliable sources through google searches. In addition you statement above that "the importance of having the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 separate article is because of the news coverage as it is the 20th anniversary of the pageant" is clearly promotional in nature.--Richie Campbell (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate? seriously? now I know you taking the piss Ritchie... I am fluent in Spanish I do a much better job than Google SwisterTwister has review my Spanish work before(Australianblackbelt (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)) Another reference http://www.theindiansun.com.au/pareena-the-face-of-ms-australia-globe/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:12, 19 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 List_of_simulation_video_games#Bus_simulation. MBisanz ^talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMSI 2

OMSI 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No credible indication of notability. A Google search finds only listings for sale and some YouTube videos showing people playing. Nothing that meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added some approved sources based on the VG/S search. It's an edge case for notability, so I'll lean weak keep. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced yet - of those six references, four of them are all from a single source (Rock, Paper, Shotgun). The one from kotaku is just four sentences, and the final one from GRY my security software won't even let me see because it is black-listed. Maybe it is brilliant, but I'm not prepared to take the risk. It would be nice to hear from somebody else - would anybody from WP:VG care to comment? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  They're all vetted sources. The Kotaku article isn't so much an article as a video article--hence why the YouTube video is embedded. I have no issue with the GRY article myself, so perhaps you have some particularly sensitive addon that you're using. Regardless, it's weak, and there's probably only notability for the pair of games OMSI and OMSI 2 rather than one or the other, since some of those sources are for the former rather than the latter. --Izno (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_simulation_video_games#Bus_simulation as a valid search term. With no major reviews and after reading through the sources (which are from vetted, reliable publishers), I don't see how we'd have enough material to write a full treatment of this topic. czar 08:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as user:Czar suggests. The references given do not demonstrate significant coverage in RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 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 redirect to Cineworld. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cineworld Unlimited Card

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

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

The product itself doesn't seem independently notable. Any mention can be on the article of the issuing organisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to parent company's article Seasider91 (talk) 15:24, 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) 09:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West of Ayala

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

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

Article creator contested PROD. This is an unsourced article about a standard residential building that is not notable because it does not pass the requirements of WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage found via source searches consists of routine coverage, such as a fire that occurred there ([11]) and a death that occurred there ([12]), but not finding significant coverage about the structure itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per North America.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EricSerge (talk) 15:28, 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 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roomorama

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

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

The page has been around for over 3 years, so CSD may not apply here. The page however has gone for almost an entire year without a single source to show notability. At this point, this is just a page that says it's a website that exists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no strong opinion as to whether this is kept, but just to note that when this was written the sources were there and they were removed en-masse (along with most of the body text) by a SPA a few months ago. ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is very odd that a SPA with the same name as the web site apparently removed the references, at least some of which were positive. Reverting to that version, however, would re-create a blatant advertisement and it did not appear to be savable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage in independent sources. Deli nk (talk) 00:25, 9 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 merge to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions.  Sandstein  12:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council

List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page appears to be a poorly sourced, highly editorialized, and factually incorrect page that was translated from a non-English Wikipedia page.

1. According to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions and the official UN source, the last US veto was in 2011. This page alleges that there has been 20+ since then. This article seems to be a list of nay votes by the US (however, I suspect it isn't exhaustive), as opposed to veto votes by the US.

2. The formatting is a complete mess. One column alternately displays years and vote counts, with many vote counts being '?'.

3. The references are a mess with reference number 8 including up to 'ci' but also having about as many different Wikipedia links. Additionally, the references are used to editorialize. One reference to a 1985 vote is "To learn more, see: US support for the Nazism" which is another non-English translated Wikipedia page of questionable quality that doesn't even discuss anything beyond the 1920s. Another reference is "The efficiency of the questioned National Security Agency is zero, as shown | here". There seems to be a heavy anti-US slant in this article, as exemplified by the "see also" which includes the unrelated topics of Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, List of wars involving the United States, and Israel and the apartheid analogy.

List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions is a perfectly good resource for all of the US veto votes. No other country has their own list of vetos, I don't see why the US would need one. Especially, one of so poor quality as this article is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User578918 (talk • contribs) 20:45, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions per nom's rationale which I find well reasoned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The advantage of a country specific listing is that these vetos are generally done for ideological or strategic reasons and this is best illustrated by dividing the vetos up into country specific groups. They are also very much influenced by the era in which they took place so it is useful to also have them in chronological order. Yes, List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions has the option to order ALL the vetos in chronological order and has the option to break down the vetos into country by country order, but it does not have the option to group an individual country into their individual chronological order - so some usefulness will be lost in such a merge. If a merge is to take place, the article content on what a veto is and criticism of their use should be retained and expanded to suit the other article. Content detailing the number of UN votes the veto effectively ignored also seems important data, so woiuld need to be transferred. The more descriptive detailing of what was being vetoed given on this article also seems more useful. If such data cannot be transferred, I would be against a merge. Also, regarding the claim that nay votes are being counted as vetos, in news reports there often is a colloquial use of the word "veto" to describe a situation where either Russia or America votes against, or threatens to vote against, a resolution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I will reproduce here the comment I made on the merger discussion. I do not think that the two articles should be merged. They do not address the same issues. This article is not limited to the explicit uses of the veto, but acknowledges rather the use of US international influence to stop resolutions from passing. This should be made more clear in the article. The article has also been justly criticized for being editorialized. If these issues are addressed then there is no reason the article could not exist independently. However, I do not think that a merge is the solution. Auguel (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the various lists of terrorists and terrorist groups cost to upgrade, the UN website has this delay in information as well.201.17.176.35 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A page listing Security Council resolutions vetoed by the United States (and comparable pages for each of the other permanent members, i.e. the U.K., France, the USSR/Russian Federation, and China) would be worthwhile. This page seems deeply confused, however, in that it combines votes in the Security Council with votes in the General Assembly, in which the veto power does not exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 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:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra soni

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

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

Tried to speedy this under G11 but the article creator (almost certainly) used an IP address to remove the deletion tag so now must bring here to AfD. The kid has been in a bunch of commercials, apparently. No evidence of notability has been established. I suspect COI editing, and certainly bad faith editing. (Notes: the Bollywood Life ref. is to a self-proclaimed gossip magazine, which I am going to doubt has much in the way of editorial oversight, and the Tellychakar ref appears to be hear-say only; the other two refs are IMdB cites, which means no independence, which leaves nothing.) KDS4444 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete'. Minor coverage, no main roles (IMDb has a single entry). WP:TOOSOON to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 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 00:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santangelo field

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

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

This is unpublished, uncited new material, with just one arxiv article and nothing in Google Books or Google Scholar. DVdm (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see also article (and subject) creator's comment on my talk page: [13]. - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nomination. Pure OR, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote your unpublished original research.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this violated the policy against original research in Wikipedia, but maybe restore it later if refereed secondary sources appear. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pure OR and the arXiv paper is not likely to be published in any respected journal. Theory is likely to be vacuous as no examples are given to show otherwise (but this is not Wikipedia's concern).--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete, original research/blatant self promotion.Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parity (software)

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

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

The ONLY reference I could find to this software was the company's own website. KDS4444 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found references in Gnews (adding "blockchain" helps the filter significantly.) However, they mostly appear to be standard press releases. Delete for now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which one are the criteries for delete an softwre article?. Wikipedia is full of articles about software pages. It is one of the few implementations of new Ethereum Blockchain Technology. As new software and not being backed by an important corporation it is normal not many references. Just wondering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkzwkz (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. There is little in the way of third party coverage available and I don't see evidence that this is very popular. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 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 keep. General consensus to keep; the article has been at AfD for a while now and there has been no other input from editors to suggest anything other than keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Comeback (2015 film)

The Comeback (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film. Existence does not equal notability. No refs, and I could find none independently (searching was complicated by the film's title). What I found was IMDB (no independence), blogs (not reliable), and some promotional information. KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found two short reviews: [14] from the Philippine Daily Inquirer and [15] from The Philippine Star. I used to be better at finding Southeast Asian reliable sources, but I'm somewhat out of practice. I might be able to dig up more later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm not sure how good of a source this is, but I found this video chat at ABS-CBN. There's also this review from ABS-CBN. Like the other two, it's pretty short. I think they're probably long enough to satisfy WP:NFILM, which says capsule reviews don't count. It'd be nice to hear some comments about the sources that I've found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I guess nobody's going to comment on the sources. The reviews are short, but I think they're still in the acceptable range for WP:NFILM. If I can find this much coverage, I'm pretty sure there's more that a native speaker could find. Three English-language reviews is pretty good for an independent film from the Philippines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've inlined the reference to one review from a major media source, and added another. Reviews in major media = notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:23, 12 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) Yash! 12:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese football transfers winter 2016–17

List of Japanese football transfers winter 2016–17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An unreferenced article that consists of a list of... transfers?? Are we keeping things like this? How should its "notability" be assessed? KDS4444 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Japan has a professional football league, so the transfers involving its clubs would seem notable to me. It's possible this article may have been created too soon, depending on when clubs are allowed to start signing players in the relevant transfer window. That article says the Japanese window doesn't open until 8 January, so Japanese clubs would not be able to sign players from other clubs until then. They would only sign players who are free agents before that date. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lists of transfers are notable, being unreferenced is not a reason to delete. GiantSnowman 18:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Transfer windows from professional leagues are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:17, 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 Speedy deleted per CSD G12 RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chord group

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

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

Another really odd "article". Would have nominated for CSD but no suitable code seems to exist for this. KDS4444 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion G12: Along with a misspelt title, this is a copy-paste of a section from a textbook. (There seem to be a number of probable copy-paste articles being created just now.) I have flagged this for G12, but would see no notability for this Chore/Chord Group even if worded differently. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 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 speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of this text. De728631 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3S CONCEPT

3S CONCEPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure how to even categorize this one. Appears to be instructional. Anyhow, it ain't a Wikipedia article. KDS4444 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced discussion of concepts. It probably qualifies to be speedy deleted as a WP:COPYVIO, as most of it is a verbatim copy of this Neiltonks (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 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.  Sandstein  08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design of machine element

Design of machine element (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a user guide or instruction manual. KDS4444 (talk) 11:12, 22 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]

• Delete pretty much per nom and WP:TEXTBOOK. There is this which might or might not be from the same research group as ref #2 (I could not navigate the site). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:41, 8 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. No evidence of this subject's notability has been presented during this discussion, this article is therefore found to fail the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navaikulam Juma Masjid

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

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

I am not entirely certain what this article is about. Google Books turned up nothing at all, and a regular Google search turned up Wikimapia and something about a bank. No in-depth coverage to speak of. I don't think the creator made the thing up, but I can find no evidence to support even a weak notability claim and the article has no citations to help me find any. KDS4444 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have as yet no opinion about keeping or deleting, but I'll just point out that a masjid is a mosque, and a juma masjid is something on the lines of a main mosque or central mosque of a town, in this case Navaikulam. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect to Navaikulam: some googling around leads me to believe that the article is describing this mosque, located at 8°46′16″N 76°47′19″E / 8.7711°N 76.7887°E / 8.7711; 76.7887. However, considering the lack of sources and way of writing, I am inclined to turn this into a simple redirect. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I just fixed the link in Kaduvayil palli to that image, I think they are seperate mosques. I'm sure there is a mosque in Navaikulam, but I'm not sure it meats the notability guidelines based on what is written and what I've found.Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from being a WP:NOTADVERT violation, I'm also not seeing the WP:GNG passed here. There isn't a specific notability guideline for houses of worship as far as I know, and in the absence of some sort of special case, this subject seems to fail the most basic threshold guideline for inclusion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is List of mosques in Kerala, currently a poor list covering only a small fraction of the mosques in Kerala that have separate Wikipedia articles, such as this one (which it does not yet cover). In general it is a good Alternative To Deletion to merge and redirect an article to a list-article covering the item. Here the short article has nothing that can't be covered in a list-article item. I don't think a separate AFD is necessary for each of the many other short mosque articles which could be merged to the list-article, too. It would be better for development of Wikipedia in this area to direct editors' attention to developing the list-article, instead of continuing to start separate articles and having (always-negative) AFD experiences. --doncram 23:13, 19 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]

Legend Studios

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

Fails 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. GiantSnowman 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

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

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

Fails 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. GiantSnowman 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

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

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

Fails 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. GiantSnowman 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

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

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

Fails 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. GiantSnowman 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

YWCA Metro St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [16], 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 [17]. (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]

• CommentKeep 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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete 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]

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}}.

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

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

Fails WP: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

Akilah institute for women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-notable 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]

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

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

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

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]

• 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

Liv3ly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP: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

List of hotels in Lesotho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not 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]

• 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

Wishing Well Foundation USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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]

• Keep -- notable for being a borderline scam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 4 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

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

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

I 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

List of hotels in Kathmandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not 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

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

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

The 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.  —SMALLJIM  14:58, 27 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

Edward B. Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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]