Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 24 December	26 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tobu (music producer)

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

SoundCloud plays, YouTube views and having songs on iTunes should not be the sole factors when gauging notability. This subject does not seem to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG at the moment. JTtheOG (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has a lot of fans. But he has not done enough work promoting himself via the media. Weak and insufficient sourcing.desmay (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could find, delete by WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2018 (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 - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarathar Sangam of North America

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

Organization lacks sufficient RS, either within article or in a search beyond, to establish notability Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of 3rd party coverage of the organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II Bronze Star Medal recipients

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

As stand alone lists, these lists lacks notability. The Bronze Star was very commonly awarded an its award is not something that would be used in determining the notability of a recipient. The frequency of the award makes the scope of this list immense and would make maintenance of the lists a logistical nightmare. Limiting inclusion on the list to people who are already the subject of an article makes the lists the equivalent of a category; a category that was deleted at CFD earlier this year (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal) Nthep (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a note, It does not make it the equivalent of a category: see WP:DEFINING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a psudo-category if inclusion on the list is limited to people who already the subject of a Wikipedia article. Nthep (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally never seen this stated in twelve years on Wikipedia. Lists are lists and categories are categories, but never the twain shall meet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all If individual awards are non-notable then a list is equally so.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily true. It is possible for a list in which none of the entries are invidiually notable to be entirely appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not a notable list. --Molestash (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not notable for stand alone article and subjective, incomplete. Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is the list criterion subjective? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EVERYONEELSE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on these, as I can clearly see the arguments favoring both retention and deletion. That said, I find the lack of policy-based arguments in the above to be profoundly disturbing. Please explain why this isn't notable and why you believe it should be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline in question is WP:LISTN: a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Thus a list of non-notable individuals is possible, if the group is notable. (This often arises because of BLP1E) But the same guideline notes implicitly that a list article becomes impractical when the numbers involved become too large to make it manageable. We cannot list 400,000 names without blowing a technical limit or two, and even the list of notable recipients (ie ones with Wikipedia articles) runs into the thousands. It then just becomes an indiscriminate list of names, which brings up WP:NOT. It is understood that even decorations that are regarded as common like the Pacific Star may be highly prized by recipients. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We deleted the category because some 400,000 of these medals were issued during WWII. [1] How can it then make sense to have a list article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hawkeye7 this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE given the large number of awards.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I agree with the WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DEFINE argument and the highly selective nature of this list with regard to the staggering number of recipients of this award. This specific information of this award should be on the article of the notable person; not the other way around. Ventric (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Salem

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

As stated by Richard3120 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Pirates, this actress is not notable. Most of the films in her filmography are redlinked. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in fact all of the films in her filmography, with the exception of Zombie Pirates which is also currently at AfD, are unlinked... of the other three blue links, two in fact lead to disambiguation pages and the other is to a completely unrelated film of the same name. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I found even close to a WP:RS was this interview, and for me it doesn't get her through WP:NBIO. I've disambiguated the bad bluelinks in her filmography, and now the only remaining bluelink is Zombie Pirates, currently subject to WP:AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Oppression

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

As explained by Rhadow at the talk page:

The best solution would be to merge it into Oppression, a frequently edited article, where it could get attention, editing, and perhaps deletion if required. As it is, this article is an unnecessary NPOV fork. In any case, the title is wrong. It should be National oppression.

He/she also explains that it is "not a hoax, but rather an essay of original research." LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article feels a lot more like a student's essay than a hoax, but either way, it fails WP:POV and WP:NOTESSAY, and the article's definition of "National Oppression" is poorly defined and is mostly based on the United States' historic race relationships (the article also talks about how the Russian communists opposed the so-called "National Oppression" from the imperialists, but I feel it's completely unrelated to what the article is supposedly talking about). 98.209.191.37 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kolu (company)

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

Non-notable company, I found no sources meeting the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly "speedy" -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable company / app. Sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP; citations include: "Working at Kolu". Glassdoor" -- seriously? Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of this very young company seem to be quite local. According to Wikipedia standards it is "too soon" for an article because the company hasn't yet received substantial independent coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece of a non-notable company. Kierzek (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly should have been speedy deleted. Fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. Utterly promotional with no indications of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chimere Ikoku

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Vice Chancellors of notable universities are ALWAYS notable. They always pass WP:NACADEMIC. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is speedy keep actually. Passes WP:NACADEMIC #6, Vice chancellor of one of the top universities in Africa. If your CSD tag is declined it doesn't meant you should try AfD without actually doing WP:BEFORE, because you see the article is stub. Per WP:GNG, article content doesn't determine notability WP:CONTN. I will advise you to withdraw this misnomination –Ammarpad (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bartho Okolo

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NACADEMKC. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since your nomination is in batch after they are all declined at CSD, I think my comment applies here too. Vice Chancellors are notable asdemics per WP:ACADEMIC #6 and this is vice chancellor for one of the top universities in Africa. This is serious misnomiation, I know iit can be frustrating you tagged many article for CSD and they are all declined but abruptly AfDing them with empty statement of "not notable" is another mistake like the CSD. Ammarpad (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umaru Gomwalk

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: notable professor that became the administrative head of a notable establishment. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the dueling WP:JNN's above, there are guidelines that apply to this kind of case. Chief administrator of a major university (as he and his employer appear to be) gives a pass of WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Nwachukwu Ndili

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: article will benefit from improvement, but subject is notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC #6. have been vice chancellor of one of the top universities in African continent. Ammarpad (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C6. The nomination statement is an instance of WP:JNN and fails to advance an actual justification for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pius Oziri Ukoha

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPROF, GNG. South Nashua (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstration that his publication level rises to enough to pass the level of being impactful in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glen L. Taggart

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: being the vc of unn translates to meeting wpacademics. There are definitely sources online or offline. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Have been Vice chancellor at two universities one in America Utah State University and one in Nigeria University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Ammarpad (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Double pass of WP:PROF#C6 and too-shallow nomination statement. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ogbonnaya Igwe

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the first person to admit that Wikipedia coverage of Nigerian topics in atrociously lacking. However nothing about Igwe comes even remotely close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the issues of systematic bias and the different standards for what it takes to be a high-level academic in different countries, I suspect we may be better off in this sort of case skipping the usual citation counting (he fails WP:PROF#C1 by our usual standards [2]) and instead looking for national or international-level media coverage that might be enough for WP:GNG instead. But in this case all I can find are either trivial mentions with no depth of coverage of the subject [3] [4] or stories about other people with similar names. So I can't find any notability that way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Marion Johnson

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: bad state of an article is not reason to delete. Subject meets wp:nacademics. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC #6. have been vice chancellor of one of the top universities in African continent Ammarpad (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C6. Part of an indiscriminate spree of nominations with the same vacuous WP:JNN nomination statement made against the same university by the same nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginigeme Francis Mbanefoh

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: might have supported deletion or stayed nuetral on some other deletion rationale, but the nominator reason is "non notable person", which I don't think is the issue with the article or its creator. Subject is notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC #6. have been vice chancellor of one of the top universities in African continent Ammarpad (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C6. Part of an indiscriminate spree of nominations with the same vacuous WP:JNN nomination statement made against the same university by the same nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE with this flood of nominations. – Joe (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert C. Kodilinye

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: poorly written article of a very notable individual. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC #6. have been vice chancellor of one of the top universities in African continent and in addition being Fellow of renown academic society. Ammarpad (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C6. Part of an indiscriminate spree of nominations with the same vacuous WP:JNN nomination statement made against the same university by the same nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G12 (blatant copyright violations). There's no prejudice against the page being recreated, provided it's actually written in the user's own words. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St.Mary's Forane Church, Kanjoor

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

Non notable church, blatant advertising Ammarpad (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work but is notable for both cultural and architectural reason. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12, 100% copyvio and spam. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Abandoned Boat

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 18:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and OR. the cited Dawn source doesn't discuss the painting in depth. --Saqib (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable painting. Refs inadequate. Large portions are just promtional OR. Someone should also nominate the artist's page for deletion ( Aqeel Solangi) as it seems to be in precisely the same vein as this article.104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan S. Wolfson

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

Delete: as purely promotional. Founded one business which filed for bankruptcy. Tone indicates the article was almost certainly written by subject or an associate. Quis separabit? 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As a businessman, fails WP:GNG. Forbes award not distinguishing. As an academic, fails WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. The article on his company reads suspiciously like an advertisement as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [5], [6], [7], [8]. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY claim by nom is unsubstantiated. WP:PROMOTIONAL are not blatant and can be addressed through editing and don't required deletion of the entire article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and specifically per Rhadow's point. Promotional garbage aside, no sources that I can find meet any criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and the subject is not independently notable of his company. It gets some coverage, but not the subject indepedently. The other sources are likewise unsuitable; Mercury News is an interview, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2018 (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) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Massé

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. One National Hockey League source and an external link does not convey notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Marsters

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY.....PK T(alk) 23:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Margott

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the absurdly low notability criteria we have for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack MacLellan

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination - his career doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:NHOCKEY. PK T(alk) 13:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of places described as the end of land or the world

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

I think this may be an indiscriminate collection of loosely related places. Some of these are simply named "end of the world" or a foreign-language equivalent. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places known as the capital of the world. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a combination of an indiscriminate list and OR (a number of the entries here seem to be in the list because "people feel it must be the end of the world, since it's ignored so much", rather than for any reason borne out by sources). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first I thought it sounded plausible but then I realised that a lot of the entries are not solid and that World's End and Land's End (disambiguation) (which link to eachother) are the correct place for the valid entries here. There might be a valid article in the general phenomenon of choosing such place names, which clearly spans many languages and locations, but this isn't it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the above. Anyone ever been to Bootle? I went there once and it was hard to tell if the end of the world had happened or not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reached the same conclusion as DanielRigal. While there is no objection to a serious discussion of land's end or end of the world (as notable concepts), the current list has no added value beyond End of the world and Land's End (disambiguation). gidonb (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2018 (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) 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alie Craig

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Source provided mainly photo and videos of triviality and not major write up found. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this time, seems to fail even the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2018 (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) 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuka Takayanagi

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

Source are mentioned mainly in several WP:TRIVIALMENTION and fictional characters without main topic to be verify WP:RS source. External links are mainly primary source and no credible source found in the internet. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC) CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. There is some refbombing as there are two instances of "official" sites used as references. While acceptable as an "External link" they are not acceptable as a reference. There are two instances of pripara.jp, so 4 out of the seven do not advance notability, and trivial mention also does not advance notability. A WP:BLP on Wikipedia requires more scrutiny with sources and that is just not evident. Otr500 (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appears to be a sweet lady and I wish her all the best, but I could not find any reliable sources. So I cannot vote to keep as much as I would like to do so. She is young and I hope this is merely a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Knox490 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Marine Modelling Programme

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

No references provided and I can find no Google hits for it. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial and no independent WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I added a source. Redirect to Joint Weather and Climate Research Programme if someone (maybe me!) has created it by the time the AfD closes. Otherwise delete but allow the redirect upon request.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxury

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

Over reliance on Trivial mentions or blogs. Only two albums, and a fair bit of OR.

No evidence of any notability beyond a couple of minor (non music related incidents and some inherited notability) 15 seconds of fame. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 14:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Umbrella

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

Nothing of significant kind in WP:RS exist. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; no assertion of notability and directory-like, promo content. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HoldingWilley

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

Most of the article is sourced with primary sources. No significant coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:NWEB. This site's coverage is similar to recently deleted one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CricketArchive. Alexa rank of 196,934 in January 2016, says it all. Störm (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . The subject matter is promotional one. Even CA didn't long last. So what's the point in keeping this article. Abishe (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Foundation

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage about this foundation (and the awards it dispenses) to justify keeping the articles about them. Additionally, the discussion at Talk:Principles_of_intelligent_urbanism indicates a strong likelihood of a COI on the part of the long-departed creator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- and also Spectrum Foundation Awards. I could find no non-profit information in the US about Spectrum. The other article says it's an award by a magazine. Not notable, either of them. Rhadow (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already unreferenced and no reference that can establish notability in search. Ammarpad (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible references could be found in search. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2018 (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Abelson

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

WP:N The subject is not well known outside of the newsletters and editorials for VentureBeat he's written.
WP:V The only major sources provided are a write up in the LA and NY Times over his list of "the most expensive things in New York", a lifestyle piece initially run on smaller sites but later picked up by the Times.
WP:RS The only reliable sources are the Times, LA and NY respectively. The article also carries links to things hes written, which brings us to the next issue
WP:NOT Which carries the two sub categories WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTLINK, as the subject's article appears designed to promote his interests and business concerns only.
WP:COPYRIGHT is relevant only in that much material was deleted from the article prior to its submission here for AfD. The material removed and the evidence of copyright violations are listed here. The rest of the remaining material is subject to AfD for the reasons listed above. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11; just promo cruft on an nn businessman. I requested speedy deletion, let's see if it takes. Probably delete Pocket Change (newsletter) while we are at it. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not going to speedy. If it is recreated after the speedy, without consensus reached, we will be back to where we started and not able to delete per G4. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic video games

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

Complete and utter WP:OR Coin945 (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE search found these: ([1] [2] [3] [4]) which makes me think this article can be saved (even if it needs a rewrite to do so); but if there aren't enough sources to save a full article, then listifying by moving to List of Olympic video games is a preferable WP:ATD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Olympic video games per User:Iffy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to a list article, without a respective parent article, will just lead to deletion discussions of that article though. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I added those four sources to the article to buff up the article a bit. I think there might be enough coverage on the genre as a whole now to justify its existence.--Coin945 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn per Iffy.--Coin945 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Editors are free to create a redirect. Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Game On

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

This short-form gaming web series is source-less. Coin945 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is literally just a commercial for current Disney Interactive games which aired on Disney Channel during their 'commercial breaks' and had zero editorial control outside of 'make this movie tie-in game sound like the best game ever'. No notability outside of Disney Channel fanpeople who try to spam everything the network does onto Wikipedia. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. No third party coverage found. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It definitely fails WP:GNG. I did not find any third party coverage. If Disney could not get coverage given the publicity staff, then the article should be deleted. There appears to be nothing notable about Disney's Game On.Knox490 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel. While not notable by the relevant standards, can get searched, can get linked. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chill (video game)

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

I even looked under the sofa to find something useful and all I got was a moldy sausage...no source to go with it though. Coin945 (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's this article and this review from Sega Saturn Magazine. Not easy to find other stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the two multi-page spreads from print magazines (reliable sources). Gamespot mentioned briefly as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OnBuy

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

Non-notable marketplace.Typical PR hits. Winged Blades^Godric 11:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable, and perhaps never will be. The refs are not reliable for showing notability DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakpassion

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

Seems to be a non-notable website.Promo-mess. Winged Blades^Godric 11:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional page of a website which ranks 105,316 globally as per Alexa and doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. this should be salted to avoid its re-creation. --Saqib (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly nothing significant to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, not encyclopedic. Johnlp (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page is outdated and needs to be corrected. This site is forum to connect ordinary fans of Pakistan cricket with players and is fully accredited by the Pakistan Cricket Board as well; there are some outdated facts which need to be updated on this page; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir pp (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Amir pp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Self possessed and promotional one. In 2006, it was already decided to be deleted but kept orphaned for about 11 years. Abishe (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. sami ^talk 21:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promo. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 06:00, 1 January 2018 (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 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Ciecko

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

The subject of this autobiography fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to the lack substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Rentier (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this isn't linkedin.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject^[1]^[2]^[3], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.Thinker78 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not linkedin, and we need to proactively purge autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that decisions are made through consensus. Did you read my rationale for my recommendation to keep? I provided evidence that the topic is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the sources you provided demonstrate that the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple secondary sources.

The second article is from a local student newspaper, is about Cuseum and relies heavily on Ciecko's quotes. It's essentially the subject talking about his company - a primary source.
The guardian article is an interview - a primary source.
The Inc.com profile is a very low quality source in terms of depth and independence of coverage - a large portion of the text dedicated to him consists of his quotes. What little independent coverage there is suggests that he is a non-notable entrepreneur, e.g. "Employees: None; he works with 20 freelancers, many of them in Eastern Europe.".

I see no reason to keep the article, especially considering that it is a promotionally written, poorly sourced autiobiography. Rentier (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete -- promo 'cruft on a CEO of a nn company, which almost always means GNG fail. "Ciecko has been recognized by Inc. 30 Under 30, Global Student Entrepreneur Awards, PC Magazine's SMB Award" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Sourcing is passing mentions / WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Partners

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

The company has received lots of mentions but none of the sources meet the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Hence the available coverage is insufficient for a standalone article. Rentier (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not a notable company as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References note WP:SIGCOV, thus meeting the threshold. More than three, it ought to be. Ventric (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request WP:SOCK on origin account. Ventric (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, nothing in-depth, nothing with independent opinion and/or analysis, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There is also nothing to suggest that there is significant coverage on this company - lots of mentions in other articles perhaps but this is not significant coverage. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have re-evaluated my decision based on further reflection. WP:CORPDEPTH is indeed not met, per HighKing. Search results during additional WP:VERIFY yielded a better look. SEC filings and administrative corporate listings do not make for adequate WP:SECONDARY sources. One notable reference was an article in the Boston Globe about the Winthrop Square Tower project written in 09/2017. Ventric (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ventric, you might want to ~~strike~~ your original !vote to clarify your current position. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Advantage

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. It survived a 2007 AfD, but our standards were a lot lower then. Soem coverage from Pitchfork Media, but not extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is also the possiblity of redirecting to nintendocore. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I restored the article from redirect status ~~about two minutes~~ one minute before it was AfD'ed by nominator). This isn't even close. Meets several bullets of WP:MUSIC with Hella associations, two albums on a Kill Rock Stars subsidiary, and more media coverage than almost any video game music band out there. Boleyn, what's your WP:HEY standard here? Chubbles (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has already got references from Pitchfork, Pop Matters, Allmusic and Ink19; with significant coverage in these reliable sources WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I've obviously misjudged here. Merry Christmas, Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Bergmanson

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

Not notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN as small town mayor and unsuccessful candidate for governor (losing in the primary). Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his coverage meets GNG, his coverage in the media runs from 2004 to 2013. --RAN (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:POLOUTCOMES- "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted."--Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am just expressing my opinion, there is really no need to comment at every entry. --RAN (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He only commented once and totally rebutted your argument...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the guidelines for notability of politicians are such that we scapt formulaic reliance on the general notability guidelines in these cases. Coverage has to be a step above minamalist GNG interpretations. Bergmanson's coverage is all the type of routine coverage that all candidates for every office get. Nothing is even remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First this !vote says we must raise the bar above GNG to argue for deletion, which implies that the topic meets GNG. Later the post says "Nothing remotely close to showing notability". Seems inconsistent.
Given that this topic is to be found in five different other articles, this !vote doesn't adequately consider the WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Losing candidate with only routine coverage. Such politicians are generally deleted per WP:NPOL unless significant multiple sources can help them pass GNG. That is not the case here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (events). Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating and? Look at the coverage we are analyzing and then read the policy. The relevance becomes much less surprising.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the reply that it is possible to find relevance at the event notability guideline doesn't mean that the !voter has done so. Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you approximately 680 billion times since you first attempted this argument, WP:ROUTINE does not only address the notability of things that ARE events, but also explicitly states that it also addresses the standalone notability of PEOPLE involved IN events. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

680 billion is an exaggeration that says you don't expect yourself to be taken literally. Notability generally applies to entire articles. Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what we're talking about here is an entire article whose notability is in question — so I fail to see how "notability generally applies to entire articles" is a germane response in a discussion where nobody ever said otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a previous discussion we had regarding a topic in Minnesota, and your WP:Notability (events) argument was to discount a wedding announcement in the NYT. If a !vote can't explain the relevance of WP:Notability (events); by inspection, people are not events. Unscintillating (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Mayors of Glen Ridge, New Jersey or Local government of Glen Ridge, New Jersey or Glen Ridge, New Jersey. Mayors are inherently part of a larger topic on Wikipedia, so Wikipedia's notability is never a threshold for inclusion given WP:SPINOUT and WP:ATD. Given additional reliable sources, being a losing candidate for a state-level office increases notability. Being a losing candidate for a state-level office is certainly not a gotcha that prevents editors of Glen Ridge, New Jersey from covering WP:DUE topics of Glen Ridge. A Wikipedia search on "Carl Bergmanson" shows that the topic is covered in five other articles. Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing in the article and other references available -- as cited by other participants above -- meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither being mayor of a small town nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary passes WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here is not good enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. There are six footnotes, of which one is a repetition of one of the other five — so there are really only five sources, of which one is a WordPress blog, one is his own self-published campaign website, and one is his small town's local pennysaver. None of the article's content or sourcing is enough to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.
As per the edit notice given to editors posting at AfD, "if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Unscintillating (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This marks approximately the seven millionth time you've raised that argument, and the seven millionth time I've had to point out to you that the argument carries weight only insofar as you show the evidence that suitable notability-building sources actually do exist. It is not enough to say that we have to keep it because maybe suitable sources might exist somewhere even though you can't actually be arsed to look for them — the argument only counts for beans if you show some G.D. evidence. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is the seventh million time, I've been keeping count. Its annoying, isn't it. Unscintillating makes the same argument all the time. Following his logic absolutely nothing can be deleted because there might be sources out there somewhere to possibly merge the article into another article that may not even exist yet.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NPOL as a mayor of a small town or as an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary. Coverage is in passing and / or routine. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG for lack of sufficient reliable, independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Cartoon Arcade

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

A game without coverage as far as I can see. Coin945 (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I found was an interview with the designer about his other work where he mentioned in one sentence that it existed, and a book that breifly mentioned the console that it was on that listed the games, including this one. That is not nearly enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2018#District 24. Sandstein 10:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Sola

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

A political candidate with the coverage expected of this - doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2018#District 24 - redirects are cheaper than deletion, and it is plausible. If he is elected it preserves the article history; if not, it discourages recreation of what would otherwise be a redlink. Win-win-win. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that suggestion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage of his political and business activities. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2018#District 24. Can be potentially created sometime in future. Article at present is not bad and needs some more edits like addition of categories. Excelse (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a notability claim in and of itself, but nothing here makes a strong enough or sufficiently sourced claim that he has preexisting notability under another inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To begin with, it is some time until the primary election in Florida, we have not even passed the filing deadline to run, so Sola is not for sure even going to be the Republican candidate. Only if he wins in the general election, will he be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The provided sources are sufficient. @FloridaArmy Please elaborate the article to pass WP:BIO. Genome$100 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the provided sources aren't sufficient — seven of the 11 footnotes are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and he's merely namechecked in, not substantively the subject of, two of the remaining four. That is not what constitutes "sufficient" sourcing to make a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article.Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per John Pack Lambert and Bearcat, fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Bonjean

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, none of the sources are independent from the subject. Rentier (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on an nn "Futurist". Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Pirates

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

Non-notable straight-to-DVD low-budget horror movie. Fails WP:NFP, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Would have suggested redirecting to its "star" Sarah French, aka Scarlet Salem, except I'm going to put that article up for deletion as well, seeing as it also fails notability. Richard3120 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient coverage in RS to meet notability -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up an entry in Horrorpedia, and that was it. Even the Rotten Tomatoes page is blank. Fails WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miho Maeshima

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bare minimum biography, no independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and no any special achievement to meet WP:PORNBIO. –Ammarpad | Talk 09:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doe not pass WP:Pornbio or WP:GNG with mainly adult film directory references. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure to pass the general notability guidelines. It is a travesty that Wikipedia has over 60 times as many articles on Japnese pornographic film actresses as on Japanese female judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Inam Osmani

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

No independent significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG(re-opening). Störm (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is good catch IMO. this is promotional bio created by a SPA of a non-notable person. there is not a single coverage in RS. the SPA who has created this bio, previously created promotional pages related to this subject as such as Osmani & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., OSMANI & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Www.osmani.com and Inam Ahmed Osmani. --Saqib (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THe sources involve name drops in a larger article. The one I was reading also felt suspiciously like a press release.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. sami ^talk 21:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Jan

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL(re-opening). Störm (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this bio of a politician who is not elected thereby fails WP:POLITICIAN. he has been CEO of Union Bank and Bank of Punjab but I couldn't find the indepth coverage in RS. --Saqib (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. sami ^talk 21:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Liberal Party

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

Nothing for this new liberal party. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no such registered political party as per Election Commission of Pakistan. [9]. this page claims the party was registered in 2012, while there is some coverage in the g'books but it dates back to late 1980s or early 1990s so I guess its a case of namesake and there is no coverage on this organisation in the RS. the president, chairman and secretary, all of non-notable figures. in view of this, i suggest deletion of this page. --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn.. On a detailed evaluation, GBooks coverage seem to be significant and sufficient enough. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Music Industry

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

I am not seeing any significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources sans a few hits in GBooks.Per 2017120410001946, the organization is willing to be put off-records, if we can't comply with the edits by Siddhant2709. Winged Blades^Godric 07:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 08:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonce (slang)

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

The article is almost entirely about the use, meaning and etymology of the word, i.e. a dictionary entry and not an acceptable article per WP:NOT#DICT. There's a paragraph titled "Usage in English prisons" but the part that isn't about the use is about how sex offenders are treated. Sjö (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*'''Delete''' I feel that such slang terms should be an entry in [[Wikidictionary]] rather than to be on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, this article is mislead in content per Sjö's illustration. ~~~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestchuajiasheng (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Surovcik

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

Restore redirect to LECG Corporation. No evidence of WP:N. feminist (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, possible WP:COI editor who has been repeatedly removing maintenance templates and now AfD templates. Melcous (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete : Was c suite position at major consulting firm and very important to the firm. Although I do believe that the article has things to be fixed, I do not think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:8180:E5A0:DC4A:79EB:F67:6280 (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — 2601:45:8180:E5A0:DC4A:79EB:F67:6280 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Not much reliable coverage, I agree that merging/redirecting back to LECG Corporation is the best option. Greyjoy^talk 01:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because creating more and more Chief X-thing Officer positions is in vogue, does not mean we have to create more and more articles for each person who gets so designated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : Although there are not many sources I still think that him having a bloomberg profile makes him important enough to have a wiki page. I believe that Most business execs (C Suite) should have wiki pages because they are leaders in their companies and make very important decisions regarding our economy and business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExecBios (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ExecBios (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Striking out sock vote by confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited, and I can't see significant independent coverage online in WP:RS, just lots of self-published rent-a-bios on the usual sites like Bloomberg. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. also the architect of this page using the name "ExecBios" has a history of vandalizing the Devon Preparatory School page.Wa3frp (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Bloomberg is a reliable source and there is no credible evidence of a paid biography. How is Bloomberg not a credible source and how is it biased? Bloomberg covers businesspeople and executives with an un-biased lenze.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeministEnthusiasm (talk • contribs) — FeministEnthusiasm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Striking out sock vote by confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete There is not enough reliable coverage, but, he is notable enough for a wiki page. ExecBios needs to stop vandalizing pages and should be banned for that. I don't get why people think its self-done, if it was there would be more mention of not true "accomplishments". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Six Five (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — Adrian Six Five (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking out sock vote by confirmed sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewing admins - just before the two obvious sockpuppet additions above, article creator User:ExecBios attempted to delete another editor's post in this edit. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft: Dragons of Outland

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

The confused use of tense tells me that this was written about a future event, which eventually never happened. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This series has actually been published. PriceDL (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unconvinced it meets WP:BOOKCRIT. Only seems to be mentioned in blog style sources. PriceDL (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Warcraft, which mentions (but does not link) the series, but I don't think one would be useful. Anyone knowledgeable enough to search this term could find the parent page. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, with essentially no traffic either. Not sure a redirect is worth it, and nothing to really merge. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The King (video game)

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

Found absolutely nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ripping. Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game rip

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

This does not seem to have enough coverage in the literature. Could be quickly summed up in a larger-scoped article about Copyright and video gaming Coin945 (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:ATD, to ripping as a potential term that isn't notable enough for an article. Game rip (audio) suffers from the same problem and could also be redirected._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conquista de Titã

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

Completely unsourced. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mach 3 (video game)

(Find video game sources: "Mach 3" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I can only find a few magazine articles. Not much to prove independent notability. Coin945 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I can only find a few magazine articles." Which ones are those? Multiple sources may be sufficient for GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm upon some further sluething I got a few more. On second thoughts, I think this particular one can be speedy kept.--Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign '84

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. I didn't find any independent coverage. Coin945 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No sources = no article. Notability has not been established.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spellcaster. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spell-caster

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

This does not appear to have independent notability as a term. Coin945 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spellcaster. Even if non-notable it's still a viable redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle It, Don't Trash It!

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

Fascinating piece of history, sure. But it does not need its own article. Content could be integrated into a Health and video gaming article as a one-line summary. Coin945 (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–I just removed an irrelevant paragraph about “Winners Don't Use Drugs”. No evidence that this government propaganda is notable. 108.210.218.116 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Powergaming. The discussion suggests that the other mentioned articles should be merged there also. Sandstein 10:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optimization (role-playing games)

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

The first line of the article points out that this means essentially the same thing as: Munchkin (role-playing games), Powerleveling, Powergaming, Min-maxing, Twinking. No need to have so many articles about the same thing. This particular term doesn't seem to have independent coverage. Coin945 (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to powergaming. It's the same thing but stripped of the pejorative connotation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge, but am wondering if multiples of the articles the nominator brings up couldn't be better merged together. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some of them - or all of them? - could actually be merged into the Optimization article? "Optimization" actually seems to be a pretty descriptive term for all of them, that I think an outside observer could understand, while all of the other terms seem to me like they would only really be immediately recognizable by a gamer. BOZ (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Powergaming. And, yes, most or all of the rest of these should also merge there, per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NEO, WP:POVFORK, etc. Powergaming is the broad, overarching term. "Optimization", even disambiguated with "games", "gaming", etc., would be a big FAIL when it comes to WP:PRECISE, since the term in that context is just as likely to refer to building and tweaking systems for optimal game-play performance. It an also refer to tweaking the game's own settings to best suit the hardware platform. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 14:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consolization

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

Comes across as a "How to" guide. Coin945 (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-gamer, this article is confusing. Since there aren't any sources, clean-up will be redundant. I think this is much more like a Wikidictionary entry rather than Wikipedia's. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Also confusing, as a gamer I have always thought "consolization" was a pejorative term for a game series becoming "dumbed down" when it went from PC to consoles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Holy Grail. Sandstein 10:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Grail

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

One-line stub. Doesn't appear to have independent notability. Coin945 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every video game ever produced is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holy Grail as it is sometimes described as simply "The Grail"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (game publisher)

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

One-line stub. Its two games seem more notable than the developer/publisher. Coin945 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak Interactive

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

While the company's games may have notability, the company itself doesn't appear to have enough coverage in the literature. Coin945 (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- barring some last-minute improvements that would demonstrate notability. Article lists no sources and no attempt has been made to provide references, if any are available in the first place. We should expect better of the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial footnote of a now defunct company. Notability is not shown. Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability for the company, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Control point. Sandstein 10:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Control points (video games)

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

There is no need for this to exist when it can be summed up as a few-line summary in a larger-scoped article. Not a useful search term so should be deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is for merging the article elsewhere, not deleting it. Therefore, why open a deletion discussion when you could just bold merge it? --The1337gamer (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms per nom, where it already has a listing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Hammer

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- uncited since 2009. Nine years is plenty of chances to demonstrate notability which has not happened in this case. An unnecessary directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Vinni

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

Notability flag has been on the article for 6+ years, and no improvement. Subject's personal page is now offline, and there are no references to him in google that aren't from this wiki page. Theredproject (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I Googled and saw as if the subject has went into hiding. Since there is no improvement nor development on the article, I think there is no reason for it to stay. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetech

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Two trivial pieces of coverage in not significant press [10]. Theredproject (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any RS here, only lists.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libcrypt

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

I couldn't find anything. Coin945 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information available and no references in the article. Hagennos (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subdued Software

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

Doesn't appear to have enough coverage. Coin945 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming the nom is referring to there not being enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, I agree. No indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GameTree.tv

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

Can't find coverage. Coin945 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even this any more; going by their website, they create underwhelming and spam ad-filled casual games for smart TVs, Rokus and Apple TVs now (I've played their Roku dart game for instance; PUBG it isn't). Article seems abandoned to it's 2010 state; though the company still exists, it hasn't gained any further notability since then. Nate • (chatter) 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Wiber

(Find video game sources: "Cross Wiber" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Two line stub Coin945 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the game is extremely old, I doubt we will get any reliable secondary sources in the internet. BTW, this game has a prequel, Cyber Cross which is also a 2 line stub without any sources given. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no sourcing at all. It is long past time we stopped tolerating unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S. Surajkavee

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

Non-notable film editor, fails WP:GNG, cant seem to find anything in my searches that proves notability. FITINDIA 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILMMAKER. At present, figure at hand here not notable enough yet. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Web

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

I don't see that this company is notable. I just pared down quite a bit of promotional content based on unreliable sources including WHIR, which seems to publish rehashed press releases. Nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH remained. There are also issues of spamming by editors associated with the company (including likely undisclosed paid editing); if the company were notable that could be fixed, but I don't think there is enough reliably-sourced information out there. Huon (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory listing on an unremarkable company just going about its business. No indications of notability or significance, and significant RS coverage not found. Such content belongs on the company website, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very trivial, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus where to redirect to, editors need to figure this out separately Sandstein 10:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riot (developer)

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

Can't find any sources. Coin945 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nihon Telenet. ~Mable (chat) 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, UNLINK, then redirect title to Riot Games, 100% the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Riot (developper)". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuickShot

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

Can't find any sources. Coin945 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was also unable to find any reliable sources (online, GBooks, etc). Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:25, 1 January 2018 (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 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jikkyo

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

Two line stub. Coin945 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2017 (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/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is long past time we removed all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game without reliable sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:19, 1 January 2018 (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:CSD#G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopakumar R. P. (2nd nomination). ansh 666 20:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Gopakumar

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

This article was deleted via AfD in October: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gopakumar_R._P._(2nd_nomination). Forgive me if this should beDeleted through another mechanism then AfD -- This is a new one for me (Reposting a deleted article). Theredproject (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The biography doesn't establish notability and doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. Moreover, the article was deletion before through discussion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo D’Castro Chibana

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

No indication of notability. Written by a creator who has used sockpuppets to try to publish this article (compare this article to history of Draft:Marcelo Tibana) and has an apparent COI (uploaded a telegram that the subject personally received to the Commons as "own work"; disclosed paid editing on a sockpuppet account here). The subject's one published work was only ever published electronically (according to the article itself), and the cited sources don't seem to mention him. There's no indication of meeting WP:V for much of the article's content, let alone WP:NAUTHOR. Mz7 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly not a notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further examination of the creator's deleted contributions, this may actually be a repost of The Poet from Omaezaki, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poet from Omaezaki. Mz7 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dure

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

Unremarkable borderline WP:1E instance —cnzx (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somewhat remarkable, but coverage seems to be limited to fall 2017. Should he do some more "vigilante paedophile hunting" - and be covered - he might be notable in the future. TOOSOON at the moment. There are also some possible BLP concerns regarding the "hunted" in the current article (which could be cleaned up, not grounds for deletion).Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.inc.com/magazine/20081001/cool-determined-amp-under-30.html

[2] ttp://bcheights.com/2017/04/19/with-cuseum-museums-enter-the-digital-age/

[3] ttps://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/2015/apr/03/tech-talk-brendan-ciecko-cuseum-museums

[1]

[2]

[3]