Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 February >

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for creativity research

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

Probably is not notable; does not have independent notability. Can't find sources in Russian about it. XXN, 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:13, 5 February 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) 23:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NavaShield

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NSOFT and WP:NPRODUCT all sources I could find were "removal" sites as well as YouTube videos and the like. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't turn up any reliable sources either. Not every malware is going to be notable. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note This was previously PROD deleted in 2012. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage. A search turned up only how-tos and forum posts, no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:01, 6 February 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) 23:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyungtae Noh

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Reads like a C.V. Absolutely no evidence of done anything to achieve notability within WP. scope_creep (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone with no convincing signs this can be sufficiently improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Basically a CV, and fails to explain the subject's notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 2 February 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 AfD was withdrawn by nominator, and anyway the result was keep 3-2 L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries

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

Wikipedia is Not listings EDIT NOMINATOR IS CONSIDERING retracting AfD Edit Withdrawn by nominator L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is a collection of statistics without any context, failing WP:NOTSTATS (#3) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would seem to be a valid member of Category:Lists of aircraft orders and deliveries, for a highly notable aircraft. The statement above that it is "a collection of statistics without any context" is obviously patent nonsense. One may object to this list, but it is clearly contextualized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: It is a indiscriminate list failing WP:CSC. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. But whatever. Let's see what consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't understand nominator's rationale. Article is well sourced, maintained and used in context with the aircraft article -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats new? I think it is a well written article, and is probably helpful to someone, however, I'm not sure how it endimic to Wikipedia's goals. I am open to being persuaded. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well an AfD needs rationale to delete, and I'm not sure what yours was. It is sourced so WP:V is not an issue, and orders and deliveries of these planes are well covered in RS so WP:N is met as well. Seems to me that this (and similar) articles about aircraft orders and deliveries have been split out into separate articles only because their inclusion in their parent article would make the sections too long. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale was "I don't believe this article belongs on Wikipedia". I'm not going to cire NOTABILITY because that would be useless. However, I have reviewed both the article, and the 787 article and I am agree that this article is not bad. What I don't get, is, why do we care who has ordered how many planes?? I have been interested in planes for a long time, but I fail to see why order forms, no matter how well written and sourced, are interesting enough to be on Wikipeda.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's not really a valid rationale per WP:DEL-REASON. Wikipedia is not about what is interesting to you. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would seem to be an example of WP:WHOCARES, which is not the sort of thing that represents a policy-based argument. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~List of Boeing 787 operators is quite sufficient.~~ It's already well summarized at Boeing 787 Dreamliner#Orders and deliveries. Wikipedia is not a trade journal. Also delete the other orders and deliveries lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say the reason why this article exists is because including it all at Boeing 787 Dreamliner would make that article section too long, and it was appropriately broken out with the summary left in. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per Shawn in Montreal Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 06:49, 1 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whine Party

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

No evidence found online of notability. No independent coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM and GNG; sources cited are not RS DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:31, 6 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power saving devices

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

This article should be deleted as it is does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search revealed ^[1] but that is not enough to be notable under WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/the-real-truth-behind-household-power-savers

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authors response: I added more references and links to other articles. There is a lot of articles on power saving devices on the web but all are from vendors. Therefore it is important to have a more neutral article about this topic. It can hardly be avoided that it is technical, but it is not more technical than other articles on electrical power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.198.70 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although it would be possible to have an article on power-saving devices, this is not that article. It is completely off-topic, a ramble through various power-related themes, and is essentially nonsense. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is plenty of good content that could be included in a WP article with this sort of title, and such an article should be brought into existence, but the current content is neither good enough nor likely to be edited into a useful article; this is a bad start for an article. (My biggest problem with this article is not that it is a poor presentation of the material (although this is the case) but that the topic that the originating author has in mind seems to be much more limited that the article title would suggest. The author needs to either start over and write a more general article that matches the title (if this does not already exist in WP) or come up with a more narrow title that more closely matches what they seem to want to cover.)-71.174.175.150 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 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) 23:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAgent

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

There's thick signs this is a clear unconfessed company advertisement and there's still been no attempts made at confirming it, therefore given the newest changes have only emphasized the advertising: "Still nothing for actual independent notability and substance since it's only what they would advertise to clients and that alone is unacceptable in our non-negotiable policies and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else; the sources here are all clear business announcements and mentions, and wouldn't even be enough for our basic policies.". All of this, combined or not, is enough for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This article falls in a tricky area in my view, because it probably meets WP:N and WP:V given the coverage in RS, including those already in the article, but the article is overtly written like an ad. "A couple of years ago we set out to transform..." is a glaring example within existing text. It can't be allowed to stand like this as it fails WP:NEUTRAL, so I think WP:BLOWITUP is the way to go, with no prejudice against an objective editor recreating at some point in the future. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Whats new above. PROMO by an SPA. But yes it could be rewritten. @Connections8: If I may try to help you try to save the article please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG, no references that meet WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Southern (evangelist)

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

This article was nominated for deletion 2011 and closed as No Consensus. At the AfD, some people claimed that there were Google hits, but none were provided. None have been added to the article since then. The article as it is written almost qualifies for BLP PROD, but I am sending it to AfD to be safe. A Google News search for "'Daniel Southern' evangelist" (name in quotes) shows no hits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than being quoted by the New York Times [1] I find very little in the was of reliable sources. Still misses meeting the significant coverage part of general notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, if there were so many sources in the past AfD, why weren't any added? I can't really find any searching today. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at most -- a bad article, but on someone who might just be notable. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that most of Billy Graham's associates were notable. Crusade director probably refers to a behind the scenes organiser, who would not be much in the public eye. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 5 February 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) 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Traveler

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

Clearly unconfessed company advertising considering the one account has not only focused with this one article but then also reviewed and accepted it themselves, showing they knew exactly what would've happened had it been AfC-Reviewed; this also follows the same pattern as the past account (see User talk:InternMary, which shows this company is knowingly violating no-advertising policies. When there's such clear covert campaigning, good-faith no longer exists. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No change since previous AfD, sources are brief mentions or press releases. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:22, 6 February 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bess

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she appears to be profiled regularly over a number of years in Arizona newspapers, and by a wide variety of journalists (which seems to indicate she has an actual high profile, rather than a cosy friendship with one journo). Exhibiting at Art Miami shows she is being promoted on a wider scale. Meets WP:GNG in my view. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Sionk. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 1 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K

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

I could find information on him and he has had success, but I couldn't verify he quite meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Has been tagged for notability fo 9 years; hopefully we can now resolve the question one way or the other. 2009's AfD resulted in no consensus. Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Bonetti

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. One performance in talent show isn't a thing guaranteeing notability. Additionally it seems to be a complete violation of WP:POV and WP:COI. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 15-year-old singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 5 February 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) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trazee Travel

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

This website has no significant coverage in independent sources. The current refbombing consists largely of press releases with an occasional passing mention mixed in, and if anything better exists, I sure can't find it. —Cryptic 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG as I found nothing but press releases or brief mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nomination. Nothing to add. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 3 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Cartwright (August 16, 1943)

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

Unsourced BLP - unable to find any coverage from a Google search. Meatsgains (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the A7 speedy because there are good faith claims of notability (winning awards). However, there are a distinct lack of independent sources showing notability -- everything (including newspaper articles) seems to originate with the subject.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent coverage, including the claim she designed the US Olympic team's uniform or leotards (which wouldn't be enough in any case). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this source about the Olympics, but I don't how reliable it is. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that source and rejected adding it, since it seems the information was supplied directly by the subject of the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Keenan

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that this person passes WP:ACADEMIC. I checked his CV (linked from the Homepage link on the WP page), and I didn't see anything that met the criteria. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 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) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kedian

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

Not notable outside of the events of his unfortunate death. See WP:BIO1E. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a serving soldier killed on duty, he is only notable for that one event, therefore failing WP:BIO1E. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cwmhiraeth, Jonesey95. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sad but not notable, per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion. Fergananim (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a soldier who gets killed is not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator & Kierzek. Finnegas (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting killed is not enough to make you notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bailey (wrestler)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. The citations are almost all wrestling outlets of questionable reliability. There's only one sentence about the subject's private life which means the subject fails WP:ANYBIO, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cagematch is the most cited source and is proven reliable at WP:PW/RS. It's second most cited source is Wrestlingdata, which is fine for match and show results only, which is all it's used for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDOldSpice (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cagematch is only for results. Wrestlingdata is not considered a reliable source per WP:PW/RS. Here it is used as a source for birthname, birthplace, weight, height and trainers. Internet Wrestling Database and 411Mania are not reliable either and WrestleZone is just flat out unreliable. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 21:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has reliable sources thats were proven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.236.58.153 (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ribbon Salminen. WrestlingData accounts for a large portion of the refs, unreliable per WP:PW/RS. Independent news coverage is needed to prove notability. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vadym Pozharskyi

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

Unsure if meets notability guidelines Uhooep (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Notability is theoretically possible here, but the article as written is far too résumé-advertorial in tone, and far too dependent on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown — the few references here that are reliable sources are not about Vadym Pozharskyi, but simply confirm tangential facts about the company without even once mentioning Pozharskyi's name in conjunction with anything. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it better than this, but nothing here is good enough to stand in this form. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 5 February 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) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derwin Jordan

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

Declined speedy A7 as claims notability. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search results indicate no notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of sources that are independent and reliable to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 5 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 422

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

2054 is too distant in the future; it makes no sense for Wikipedia to promote a story that might not take place until then nearly 40 years before then. Georgia guy (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the road is under construction already. Granted, it's a short segment of the much longer project, but they're building it, and even if it takes another 37 years to complete, we should have an article. Imzadi 1979 → 14:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Articles on highways under construction and even proposed should be kept. There are articles on highways that were never built and were never deleted. There are even articles on highways that are less than 1 mile (1.6 km) long! Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Road is under construction although it will take many years to be fully complete. Dough4872 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. No reason to delete the article. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "projected to be complete by 2054". --Rs chen 7754 02:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's under construction. It's going to happen. Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Projected. --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - notable interstate. –Davey2010^Talk 19:19, 4 February 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 per WP:CSD#A3. A7 doesn't apply as this is a school, but the article just consists of placeholder text. Hut 8.5 22:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Ridge Prep - Kansas State Pre-K Program

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

Unreferenced. Incomplete. Provides no evidence of notability, but primary schools are very seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedy tagged (A3 and A7). Linguist ^talk|contribs 19:42, 31 January 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) 23:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian James Martyn

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

Non-notable local history/genealogy writer. His book (The Tribes of Galway) is self-published, and his other publications are for a local (free weekly) newspaper, or on blogs and genealogy sites. I find no sign of in-depth coverage about him in secondary RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. This doesn't equate with notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable author. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Author of a self-published book, has not received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion. Fergananim (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete historian who has not published in regular professional publications, not that that alone would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not be place for bibliographies of the works of local and family historians. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 5 February 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) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDF Lakua de Vitoria

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

Non-notable football club. XXN, 17:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:29, 6 February 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 Greg Page (musician)#Solo discography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Page (album)

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

Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could redirect to Greg Page (musician)#Solo discography rather than deletion, if found to not meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per comment above. The article references no sources. I found nothing (except it's for sale at Amazon) regarding the album in searches. No reason for a separate article unless sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the best approach.Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg Page (musician)#Solo discography. I cannot see sufficient for notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:24, 3 February 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) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Futility as Tragedy: an Interpretation of Hamlet

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

Apparently self-promotional article on book that fails to meet general notability; only edited by someone that appears to be either the book's author or someone affiliated with them; and orphaned for the last eight years. Xover (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A promotional article on a non-notable book that was self-published. It contains no reliable sources that show that this particular book was every notable, and searching comes up with nothing but mirrors of this article, or sales pages to buy it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear listing complete with the last sentences, nothing policy-convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete due to age and PROMO. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, for lack of obvious notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:50, 3 February 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Kukhianidze

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

Non-notable writer, fails WP:NAUTHOR. This biography is supported only by primary sources. No discussion of the person in the media or literature. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.--77.243.189.211 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG given the lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lincolnite (talk) 08:56, 8 February 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 (criteria: A7) (non-admin closure). Linguist ^talk|contribs 19:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El grumpo lumpo

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

This is incomprehensible. Is it about a game, a person, a fictional person, or what?

If someone wants to nominate this as patent nonsense, I will concur. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily – I found 3 results: one from a wiki and two results from Roblox. I don't think G1 applies, as it isn't entirely incomprehensible. I think A7 could apply, however. Linguist ^talk|contribs 16:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The article was previously created by the same user and speedied less than an hour ago (see filter log and deletion log). Linguist ^talk|contribs 16:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a page is deleted repeatedly, it is sometimes good to let XFD run, both so that G4 applies in the future, and to provide a better basis for salt. If anyone wants to speedy this, I don't object. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As to comprehensibility, any one sentence is comprehensible. As a whole, it isn't. Speedy deletion is for clear cases, and the only thing clear is that we should delete this. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:COAT article. It also is has no references making it possible that it contains WP:OR and should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:59, 31 January 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 an author request. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Individuals Income Generation

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

Pure WP:OR. Not much there to merge into anything else. South Nashua (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please speedy this per U7. creator is taking another stab at this in user space for now. South Nashua (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:OR. no evidence of this being an actual term. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this is an encyclopedic topic; article is essay-like. PamD 14:16, 2 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manab (Music Video 2016)

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

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

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

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

This appears to be an amateur self-published music video that fails WP:NFILM. A search finds no independent reliable sources. All references are to self-published websites blogsite, youtube, another blogsite. This is one of several articles by an SPA account for what appears to be a vanity project. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low-budget, six-minute music video, artist Rajkumar Patra is redalinked and so is director Rocky Rupkumar Patra (related?), so no plausible WP:ATD-R here. Sources to meet WP:NFP have not been found; delete per WP:DEL8. The article Aranye Maniac Killer Mystery (2014 Short Film) (AfD) features the same two persons as actor and as director. — Sam Sailor 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep This music video based on bengali language, and its noted for broadcasting on tv channel, Sangeet Bangla on September 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.191.160 (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — 27.63.191.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The particular editors will still targeting my articles, which will many talks in sites after search on google, local low budget music video will broadcasting on Bengal's no1 music channel. The work is notable in local area. Jhargram They are judge my article also pointing & insulting those works as a amateur self-published etc. Who are you to judge? There are lots of articles exits with very few reference with short brif which dosent have to in wikipedia. I voted for to keep Manab (Music Video 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudisina (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yudisina (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

* Keep The Lead actor Rajkumar Patra Well known for his modeling, acting, career. There have several web reference. Also he acted in Icche Dana and idiot (2012 film) unaccredited. As established individual with talents, as for Manab Music video is Broadcasting on tv channel Sangeet Bangla many times. See reference. Also starrer Sudhu Tomari (Telefilm 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.173.176 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC) 27.63.173.176 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. — Sam Sailor 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC) * Keep This music video must be kept reason of this is broadcasting in Sangeet Bangla notable music promotion channel in west Bengal. The work is best of others low budget music video. The result should keep. I vote manab - Sanu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.44.139 (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — 223.191.44.139 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think I smell socking here...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blogs and user-driven-content sites do not demonstrate notability - I cant find any reliable secondary sources covering this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage appears to be self-generated by the video's creators. Not notable. South Nashua (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, fails WP:NFILM by a wide margin. PGWG (talk) 18:41, 31 January 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 Grazhdanskaya Oborona. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khuy (song)

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

Unreferenced. Suitable to merge into Grazhdanskaya Oborona Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be good if sources can be found to verify the content. Otherwise Delete seems a good option. My searches found nothing. Without any sources it fails any notability guideline. Gab4gab (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grazhdanskaya Oborona as there's noting verifiable or notable to merge. Fancruft from indeffed user. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 8 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Seeber

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His administrative position (Senior Vice Provost) at Cornell is not enough for notability through WP:PROF#C6 and his scholarly record prior to switching to administration is not enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 4 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie (rapper)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate biographical information in secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kembe X

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a few brief biographies in rap magazines, but no significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete despite the Forbes mention, he does not pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 2 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pkhista River

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

River does not appear to have received coverage in anything outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors and apparently a few maps. Does not qualify under WP:GEOLAND, though it apparently does exist. KDS4444 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not doing any harm as is, and GEOLAND is sufficiently vague so as to leave it open to interpretation. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously important. That there are few English language sources on this Georgian river does not make it unimportant. Or make it disappear. In fact, this is a WP:Systemic bias in Wikipedia we ought to overcome. Presumably there are Georgian language sources, but I am unaware of a handy Rosetta stone for that one. I don't know how much Google interacts with Georgian media, if at all.

WP:GEOLAND provides: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. [Emphasis added.] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another unwarranted nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with User:Dr. Blofeld. We could be editing instead of needlessly defending articles from pointless How many angels can dance on the head of a pin discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And that is why I dislike the Cult of Deletionists. Did you see the Mary Anne MacLeod AfD? It is heinous! L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a river. See GEOLAND. See this study. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Study". Moscow University Geology Bulletin. 29. Allerton Press: 37. 1974. Retrieved January 31, 2017. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All aticles on rivers are kept; I'm not sure how nom thinks it doesn't meet GEOLAND. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, what I am getting here (other than a load of hostility) is that all rivers are notable regardless of whether or not any information about them can be found beyond their mere existence/ coordinates on a map. This appears like a contradiction to what the guidelines are at WP:GEOLAND, which specifically state that information beyond existence and coordinates are required in order to warrant an article on a geographic feature, and that actual sources are required to do so (rather than hypothetical ones in a foreign language, which may or may not exist— there is no article yet on the Georgian Wikipedia on this river to help substantiate this). The only Google Books hit on this river is this very Wikipedia article, and of the 15 hits on Google anywhere for this river (in English) most appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia. If I am misinterpreting the text of WP:GEOLAND then I politely ask the other editors involved here to explain that to me (rather than offer insults, which are unlikely to move this conversation forward). Also please note that I am not suggesting that this river "disappear" (which is ludicrous)— I am suggesting that it is not notable, and that its mere existence does not make it notable (in the same way that every street in every small town in American is not likely to be notable, or every building in that town, or every steeple, or every person, or every fence post). While I am not opposed to the idea of possibly redirecting the subject to another namespace (maybe some river into which it flows), unless someone can provide some kind of evidence that the river is actually notable (and doesn't merely exists) then I have to stand by my nomination and ask others to make a better effort than has been shown above to demonstrate how it is notable and therefore warrants this article. "All articles on rivers are kept"— the logic there is the basic fallacy on which the rest of the Keep votes seem to rest... I can make a river out of a hose and a 5-gallon bucket of water, and give it a name, and some coordinates, but that will not make it notable. A less knee-jerk justification feels needed here, one that is not based on the words "all" and "always", which are ways to railroad a more polite and more nuanced conversation. KDS4444 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be a hostile bully. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rivers have a threshold for notability just like everything else in wikipedia. This doesn't meet that threshold. "Presuming" that there are meaningful references somewhere doesn't count.Glendoremus (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above keep rationales and particularly the reasoning of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. Lepricavark (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Passes WP:GEOLAND. That's sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 3 February 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. Recreated after AFD deletion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cam O'bi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pre previous AfD, why was that one not enforced?? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Logs suggest it was deleted by User:Malcolmxl5, I guess it was recreated. Thn deleted again by User:Jimfbleak under speedy. This should have been speedied again as recreation of a deleted article. Given yet another recreation, I think it is time to also consider WP:SALT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:21, 31 January 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 List of Lebanese people in Denmark . Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese people in Denmark

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

I don't think this is necessary - we have List of Lebanese people in Denmark, surely we don't really need one for the general public? Nördic Nightfury 14:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article is a non-encyclopedic cross category. See WP:NOTDIR #6. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Suprised the Holy Church of NPP didn't flag this one at the door. L3X1 My Complaint Desk
Comment. Articles on minorities can be notable, but we need sources, and I don't see anything. Could consider a merge as a lead for List of Lebanese people in Denmark. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I was looking in Category:Lebanese diaspora to see what we usually do. There we have e.g. Lebanese people in Egypt which is in better shape. In the subcat Category:Lists of people of Lebanese descent‎ we have "List of Lebanese people in <country>"-lists. Opening List of Lebanese people in Egypt I see three names listed, only two are blue-linked. If you asked me, these could just as well be listed in Lebanese people in Egypt. WP:CFORK and such; do we have a guideline on this? List of Lebanese people in Denmark is older than Lebanese people in Denmark, so you could merge a line from the latter to the former and delete the latter, and then move List of Lebanese people in Denmark to the main title Lebanese people in Denmark. I think that's a bit similar to Piotrus' suggestion, although as often before he says it with less verbosity. :) KAP03, I don't think this is a cross category situation, what makes you say that? L3X1, the article is not eligible for deletion under any WP:CSD criteria, ~~TTBOMB~~ to the best of my belief. Which one were you thinking of? Anyway, as nom says, no need for both article and list. — Sam Sailor 19:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor TTBOMB? I do not see that as a policy nor on the CSD page. What does it mean?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Apologies, that was not good talk page manners, TTBOMB = to the best of my belief. — Sam Sailor 21:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor Thanks, I totally wasn't thinking of it as a word abbrvieation like IMO. I was thinking that NPP might A10 it based off the existence of List of Lebanese people in Denmark and the fact that the article was so short. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: That's the reason why we should not use obscure initialisms. If I had met this article at NPP, it had probably not occurred to me that we had List of Lebanese people in Denmark, to be honest. If I had figured that out, I would just have WP:BLANKANDREDIRECTED as the title format looks valid, cf. the other articles in Category:Lebanese diaspora, and that solution is a valid WP:ATD. If the rest of you insist on deletion, I think the world will still exist tomorrow, but I don't see any valid arguments per policy. — Sam Sailor 21:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I took the liberty and made our comments small, hope it's ok with you. Feel free to change, if you believe these last four comments of ours are pertinent to the AfD discussion.[reply]

@Sam Sailor: I say that it is a "cross-category situation" as it is the non notable intersection of Lebanese people and people who live in Denmark. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 23:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a defining characteristic, not a cross-category: notice the caveat at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization". Please further browse the category tree and notice the hundreds of articles in the format [Demonym] people in [Country]. — Sam Sailor 13:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think a merge would be better than a delete for the sake of consistency as per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's comment. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Lebanese people in Denmark and redirect. Looking further into this, List of Lebanese people in Denmark to me looks like a common stand-alone list that we usually keep per WP:LISTOUTCOMES pursuant to the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates quoting WP:AOAL. Articles one step up in the category tree, in Category:Lebanese diaspora, with the title format Lebanese people in [Country] are main articles describing the history of migration. Lebanese people in Denmark might well be viable, but it would take an afternoon on the library to pull it together. WP:ATD is part of our deletion policy and should always be considered prior to deletion. In this case it is logically to apply WP:ATD-M, and I have merged a few sentences to List of Lebanese people in Denmark and added two sources. — Sam Sailor 13:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to work on the article, parts of what is found in da:Dansk-palæstinensere may be useful. — Sam Sailor 15:27, 8 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Speedway

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

Violates WP:PROMO - article is just an ad for a minor racetrack Rogermx (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogermx want me to G6 or G11 it?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great - I don't think there are any real issues here. Thanks! Rogermx (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! L3X1 My Complaint Desk 12:27, 7 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. No prejudice towards relisting separately depending on outcome of ongoing DRV. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the European Baseball Championship

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

This article duplicates information that exists at the national team page of Israel. Therefore its unnecessary. Nations at the xxx pages are also reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [2], There is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable."

We did have an earlier AFD discussion with all similar articles grouped under one and in a complete oversight I forgot this article and the ones below. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ~~Except Hopman Cup~~ As I stated in the prior AfD, most of these these fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTSTATS. They should have been included in that one, but a simple oversight doesn't justify their continued inclusion. However, we do appear to have articles on other teams which have qualified for the Hopman Cup (see, for instance France at the Hopman Cup), so those should probably be taken to a separate AfD if we want to establish consensus. Also, seeing as the Hopman Cup is essentially the national tennis team, similar to Davis Cup and Fed Cup, I'm not sure the same circumstances apply. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Delete European Baseball Championships article, Keep others - given the existence of other similar articles and the comments by Nfitz below, if nominator feels they are all not notable, they should be nominated as a group, not like this. However, those articles are only for tournaments that the teams have actually qualified for. Israel has never qualified for the Israel Baseball Championship, and to my knowledge no similar articles exist for that tournament anyway as it is a relatively minor one compared to the other two so the means of doing the AfD is not an issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Nominator has withdrawn the Hopman Cup article since I wrote this. As that part is now moot, I have clarified my !vote is now to delete all of the remaining articles. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Countries at the AFC Asian cup is not uncommon. You have not stated what WP policy you are basing your conclusion on only multiple sports competitions should have their own page. See Australia at the AFC Asian Cup, Iraq at the AFC Asian Cup, South Korea at the AFC Asian Cup for some AFC Asian Cup examples. Additionally there is tons of information on the WBC page not found elsewhere so your argument makes no sense - Galatz ^Talk 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. The ones you mentioned should probably be deleted too. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Galatz: You and Nifitz have managed to convince me on retaining the AFC and WBC ones, but I'm still not convinced the European Baseball Championships one should be kept. First of all, it's a much more minor tournament than the other two. Second, the article is much less developed than the other two (or at least the WBC one) and is basically WP:NOTSTATS. Third of all, Israel has never actually qualified for the European Baseball Championship, unlike the other two tournaments. Fourth of all, there are no similar articles for other countries at that tournament, even those who have qualified, so Nfitz's argument that they should all be nominated together and not like this doesn't apply. Why do you think that one specifically should be kept? I notice you didn't mention it above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @L3X1: Please specify a reason for your !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Smartyllama What do you want to me say? I disagree nearly completly with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - L3X1 You mean you disagree with it in principle or you disagree that it applies here? If it's the former, that's completely irrelevant - the principles apply whether you like it or not. While there can be discussion on whether the principles should continue to apply, this is not the appropriate place to have it. If it's the latter, explain why it doesn't apply here. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Smartyllama Then what does all this stuff at the top of OSE mean: "This unofficial guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, although it may be consulted for assistance. It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors;"??? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        L3X1 Well either way, deletion discussion guidelines require a reason for your vote. Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm uncomfortable deleting Israel at the AFC Asian Cup when looking at Template:Countries at the UEFA European Championship there's over 30 articles for various countries at the comparable UEFA European Championship. Other stuff exists sometimes for a good reason. Also, I'm not sure why Israel is being singled out here, in various sports - rather than tackling it on a sport-by-sport basis - or at least not massing together multiple sports. It doesn't lead to a very clean process. I'm aware that Israel at the UEFA European Championship was deleted in the referenced Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup, however the example is not comparable, as Isreal has never qualified for the UEFA tournament, but has qualified for the similar AFC one. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it feels like Israel is being singled out. I saw one article and then through clicking saw the various other ones (therefore I grouped them). I am sure I will be proceeding with AFD's for the other sports... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that there should be an AFD for England at the UEFA European Championship? Nfitz (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nfitz: Israel has never qualified for the European Baseball Championship. Should that be kept as well? That being said, you've convinced me on the tournaments Israel actually has qualified for (AFC and WBC) and I'm going to alter my !vote above accordingly. I still think the European Baseball one should be deleted as a) Israel has never qualified for it, and b) it's a much more minor tournament compared to the other two. If you are only referring to the AFC page in your !vote, which it seems like you might be given you specifically referenced it and not the others, and that some of the arguments don't even apply to the others, please alter it accordingly to make it more clear to the closing admin. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, in a mass AFDs, when they are poorly thought out, I think they should all be kept, and some should be resubmitted to AFD later, individually, or in smaller, more sensible groups. Every AFD in the football area I've seen from this person has been problematic, starting with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Luxembourg women's international footballers which was shocking, and was a snow keep in hours. Even in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup referenced above, it managed to sneak in Israel at the FIFA World Cup, but then failed to notify any of the WP:FOOTBALL community that it was going on - surely at a mininum, that should have been a redirect to Israel national football team; I'm not sure why you supported that deletion, rather than a redirect, given what else exists (i.e. Template:Countries at the FIFA World Cup), and I'm not sure why User:CambridgeBayWeather went along with it. I remain concerned, that there seems to be an attempt to strictly remove Isreali articles; we all know that and AFD for Brazil at the FIFA World Cup would fail. Nfitz (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You failed the answer the question at hand! Instead of accusing someone of attempting to remove Israeli articles please provide valid reasons why they should be kept (especially the European Baseball Championship). It was mentioned earlier OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer it. I think the AFD is fatally flawed, all articles should be kept, and if necessary, do a new AFD for the baseball one (which I'm not really qualified to comment on) individually. Nfitz (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I'm not sure why you didn't bring that template up in that AfD, considering it would have led me and possibly others to change my vote on that article. But that has nothing to do with this AfD, especially with an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with the sport. Answer the question concerning the European Baseball Championship, and stop ignoring it and making excuses. You're always welcome to contact the closing admin or take it to deletion review if that fails. I, for one, would support restoring the World Cup article in light of the new information. However, this AfD is not the place to discuss a previous one. Baseball isn't football, so stop using football arguments about baseball as they are irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when we make separate AfD's for each article, people complain that there are too many and it's unfair to make people deal with all of them. When we propose them together, people complain about that too. You can't have it both ways. Smartyllama (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was unaware that the AFD was underway. It wasn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, or the WP:Football article alerts, which I keep an eye on (thank you though for listing this one!). If I saw the name of the AFD itself, there was nothing in the title to make me think it was something I should look at. Had I been aware of the AFD, I would have commented on this issue; this is the problem of trying to mass AFD unrelated articles. I don't think I've ever complained about separate AFDs. I can't fathom putting FIFA World Cup deletions inside an article about Baseball, and then failing to notify any of the Football deletions areas. Nfitz (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: There is already a deletion review in progress for that AfD, which Galatz started earlier today. That is the place to discuss concerns with that AfD, not here. This page should deal only with the articles in this AfD. Please move all further discussion on the earlier AfD over there. If you have anything more to say on the articles in question in this AfD, go ahead, but keep this one on-topic please. Smartyllama (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Shouldn't a DRV be mentioned at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup - perhaps I've forgotten the procedure. I wouldn't have mentioned it here, had I known of the DRV. Won't mention it again. Nfitz (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Again you refuse to answer the question at hand here. Can you please explain why the baseball article should be kept? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered the question twice now. Because I feel the entire AFD is flawed, with unrelated articles, that are no way in the same category. I see no reason to keep asking me the same question that I've already answered. Nfitz (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The European one was also discussed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination) resulting in keep. - Galatz ^Talk 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Galatz: No, that was a specific instance of the European Baseball Championship, which has since been deleted in the aforementioned AfD. As I told Nfitz, if you object to that, the appropriate place to discuss it is the DRV you created, which it looks like you already have. I would suggest striking your comment here as it is misleading. Smartyllama (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely. I brought it up here because I believe the tournament is notable, as that discussion shows. If when looked at individually an individual year is notable, how could the tournament not be? Its completely relevant. - Galatz ^Talk 16:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that page was ultimately deleted for not being notable in a later AfD. Which is why your statement that it was kept is misleading. If you feel it should have been kept, that's what deletion review is for, but this is not the place to discuss that.Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with that. I think it being lumped with everything else was misleading. My comment stands and let someone who is looking at it determine if its relevant or misleading. - Galatz ^Talk 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again, that's a discussion for DRV, not here. At the very least, I recommend you edit it to note the fact that it was later deleted in a mass AfD, while voicing your concerns about the process in which that happened, so people are aware of the totality of the circumstances without having to read all the ways down the comment tree. Smartyllama (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD isn't entirely irrelevant here, as it was mentioned in the nominating statement, as justification for deleting these articles. However the AFD has been challenged at DRV, in particular on the basis that the articles like those here, should have been kept; and no one seems to be disagreeing with that. Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've said the AFC and WBC articles should be kept. To date, nobody has made a similar argument for the European Baseball Championship except one person who said "Keep" without specifying any reason at all, which shouldn't be counted. And we're talking about that here, that's what's relevant. I encourage the closing admin to keep that in mind. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it would be best for the nominator to withdraw this temporarily and reopen it again as necessary depending on the results of the DRV. We're having discussions in too many places here and it's causing unneeded confusion. Also, some people might change their votes depending on the outcome of the DRV. If the FIFA World Cup article stays deleted after review, I can see no rational argument for keeping the article about a continental tournament. I think they should both be kept, but the FIFA World Cup one is clearly more notable, and if that were to stay deleted, I would be reluctant to keep the AFC one for consistency's sake. Given the small number of articles compared to last time, I would also suggest the nominator nominate them separately when he reopens it if he chooses to do it that way. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Smartyllama, I am going to withdraw this afd. I do not believe articles should exist for events a country has not qualified for so the baseball one will come up again in the future. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLOSEAFD non-admin closure for withdrawal is only if no one else voted to delete. Not really sure in this situation since Smartyllama and nominator are the two who voted delete and both say to close. Perhaps Smartyllama could close? - Galatz ^Talk 02:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't the nominator withdraw at anytime for any reason? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says at WP:CLOSEAFD As mentioned above, the AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. In essense with Smartyllama closing it takes away his delete vote, making only the nominator voting delete. - Galatz ^Talk 02:53, 2 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellency Of Manuel L. Quezon

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

Non-notable speech lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even an article, for all we know it is cut and paste from somewhere else. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nonsense gibberish about a person whose article already exists. Fbergo (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My guess is it's a school assignment and flunks for WP:OR. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified; no evidence of notability; no context; promotional. Deb (talk) 12:53, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Úrsula von der Lippen

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

after removing blatant copy from self-source bio page, attempts to find any independent references on line to the subject draw a total blank, only two works listed on page and exhibitions look like self-promotional carpetbagging efforts, so notability looks non-existent Sirlanz 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, poor article is only a stub anyway L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:51, 31 January 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand in Hand (Grace song)

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

Unreferenced tracklist. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more than a tracklist. Meets WP:NSONG #1, charted in a national chart (#38 in the UK). Potentially meets WP:NSONG #3: Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups, although that would mean counting the two different artists who performed it, plus a emix, as 'several.' Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated by @Boleyn: above, this was a UK top 40 entry. I can add a reference for its chart peak, but the article should really be titled 'Hand in Hand (Looking for Sweet Inspiration) ', as Opus III were the act who first recorded it, under that title, in 1994.Nqr9 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I added reviews form WP:RSes. Seems to pass WP:NSONG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 8 February 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Beatz

AfDs for this article:

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

It still continues to fail at WP:GNG, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:REFERENCE. Even his discography doesn't have any proof of citation. DBrown SPS (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has notable productions which charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and one of them is RIAA Gold certified. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Not a notable producer. Article lacks citation, so does discography. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@66.189.232.210: Just because there isn't citations doesn't make him a notable producer? That doesn't sound right. Could you explain yourself please, thanks. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreeing with Bloomdoom on this one. 2601:580:4200:3EF0:6CAC:C5CF:7D09:A538 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC) — 2601:580:4200:3EF0:6CAC:C5CF:7D09:A538 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gilmore

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

It fails at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG DBrown SPS (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to provide biographical information and support notability. His name is mentioned on various music sites, but not much more than his name. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 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. (non-admin closure) f eminist 15:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiak

AfDs for this article:

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

This articles continues to lack WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article continues to meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Alansohn, but this article does need to be worked on, perhaps I may start working on it. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@66.189.232.210: Could you explain yourself please, thanks. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloomdoom2: I am sorry for the inconvenience, but I am completely undefined to disclose my information to you. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. But I think that Bloomdoom meant that they wanted you to explain why you think the article should be deleted, not who you are. Unless you are the subject, who you are isn't relevant to why the article should (or should not) be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. A reasonably well sourced article about a Grammy winner? I'm fine with keeping this. I agree it could use some work, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 3 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Kamenir-Reznik

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable as the founder of an organization, and as a non-winning candidate in a party primary for a state legislature seat. Neither of these is an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of adequate reliable source coverage about her to get her over WP:GNG -- but the referencing present here is entirely of the primary sourcing variety: the election is "referenced" to her own campaign website and a raw table of the primary election results, and her founding of the JWW is "referenced" to the JWW's own website rather than to media coverage about her in that role. In a nutshell, neither the substance nor the sourcing here is enough to get her in the door. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Acereznik". Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable politician and no reliable references. Apparent conflict of interest. AusLondonder (talk) 21:11, 6 February 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Stranahan

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lot of coverage with refs but of other people/people/events. Journalist who became the news, but not notable news. scope_creep (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources all the way. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Puzzled by brevity of page, I looked at page history and saw that since this page was brought to AFD there have been been mass removals and replacements of material from page by IPs. I boldly replaced the blanked material so that editors at AFD see it when considering notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Samples of the extensive reported coverage of his career: "Lee Stranahan fired by Breitbart News after being rehired. What gives?," (2014) [3] The Daily Caller; "Why Breitbart’s Lee Stranahan Really Quit" (2013) Adweek, [4]; "Breitbart reporter booted from CAIR press conference" (2017) KESQ-TV [5] (a story about a story Stranahan wrote) He is currently being described as the "Lead Investigative Report for Breitbart News." Plus, that old film Strahanhan was part of is back in the news [6]. The more I look, the more the blanking of the page looks like some sort of POV attack on a controversial journalist for a controversial publication. And the more notability I see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 31 January 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 PostgreSQL#Database administration. Feel free to merge as appropriate. czar 20:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhpPgAdmin

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

Article re-created after being deleted by expired WP:PROD on 23 December 2016. Article doesn't seem to establish notability and lacks independent reliable sources. Article had a large amount of ~~copyrighted~~ material which has been moved to talk page. Article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies. CBS527^Talk 17:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The source of the copied text does have an Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license. The copied text was not attributed correctly. CBS527^Talk 04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a Redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration as suggested by Mark viking. CBS527^Talk 15:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CBS527^Talk 04:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose deletion under any circumstances; it looks like there is sufficient content and notability for a standalone article, but failing that it should be merged and redirected, which can be discussed at the talk page. AfD is not the right venue for this. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent additions have improved the article but haven't addressed the issues with WP:NOT and notability. The article lacks reliable, independent secondary and third party sources. Currently, of the 7 sources listed 4 are primary sources from the product's web site, one is a download page from an open source site (SourceForge) submitted by a project administrator of the product, one is from a wiki-documentation site and one is from an article submitted by a project administrator of the product and contains a 1 sentence mention of the product. Your recent RfU was a good idea but I couldn't find any help in the previous history to address these issues. CBS527^Talk 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cbs527, you ignored the part of my opinion about merging and redirecting (that I just emphasized for greater visibility). Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect, as suggested below, is also okay. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising in which it's only a listing so WP:NOT always applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - undoubtedly a notable topic but you'd never know that from this list of features sourced only from primary sources. WP:BLOWITUP. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration as suggested below by Mark viking. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Nobody demonstrated how this meets WP:NSOFT yet. Nobody suggested a valid merge target yet. In which case... delete as soft-spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC) PS. Modified my vote as redirect is fine, thanks User:Cabayi for the ping and User:Mark viking for the idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration where it is already mentioned. I don't see enough reliable sourcing for notability, but there is verifiability of basic facts, enough for a mention at the target article. 5-20 page views a day suggests that this is a plausible search term. Per our Wikipedia policy for alternatives to deletion WP:ATD, preservation of verifiable material is preferable to deletion. Hence, redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge. Merge should be done to a condensed version similar to other "Admins" listed there. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 2 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Al-Tabqa Dam (2017)

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

The article was recently created by User:Deathlibrarian. Most of the article is not even about the topic "battle", except maybe the last sentence. What is more, about half of the article is unsourced. Even where sources are used, they cannot be called reliable or neutral. Kurdistan24 is a pro-Kurdish source, South Front although not pro-Kurdish is pro-Russian and anti-ISIL. Also a Twitter handle of a little-known source is used. Most of the stuff isn't even about battle, it's just unsourced and needlessly overbloated non-battle stuff of information about the dam or poorly sourced non-battle info about what the two sides have done. This article didn't even need to be created. Battle of al-Tabqa Dam could easily be covered in Raqqa offensive (2016–present). The capture of the dam is part of the offensive. And there isn't enough sognificant and large information that there will be need for a separate article. This article should therefore be deleted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (talk) I've removed the twitter reference and added some more, to make sure it is better referenced. This is actually a larger city, bigger than for instance Al-Bab. It's a major operation, involving securing a dam, and involves US air support, and both US special forces and SDF special forces. It's also an example of a rare amphibous operation in Syria. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the situation is ongoing. Please let the author some time to work peacefully. --Yug (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait~~, I agree with Yug. This might end up being a big battle, for which a seperate article would be fitting. I think, however, that in this case the article should be renamed "Battle of Al-Tabqa/al-Thawra" to include both the fighting for the dam as well as the nearby city. Applodion (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By now I has become clar that for the time being no major battle will take place at al-Thawra. Applodion (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I notice in form of real "conflict" is US airstrikes and ISIL releasing the water (which actually doesn't fall under the word conflict). The Twitter reference isn't the only one. 3 sources are still biased and somewhat unreliable: Kurdistan24, Al-Masdar News and South Front. One is ok, but three? Especially I haven't seen anyone using Kurdistan24. The attack on the dam as well as the city can easily be covered under the offensive and most of the article doesn't even seem about any actual conflict. About half is unsourced. And the article as a whole seems poorly written. The lede should briefly detail the battle, instead it is talking about the dam. There isn't even any infobox. Please bring this article to the proper standards and rewrite it properly quickly, otherwise there is no reason to keep it. I am ok with it if this ends up being a big and significant battle. But right now it hardly is in the beginning stages. Regardless, if this article is properly rewritten, then I'll consider withdrawing the deletion proposal. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the SDF and the US have a media blackout on the op, so there isn't as much news on it as could be (clearly it was a suprise operation, there was nothing about it from official channels, just locals and third party news sources). There *is* actual fighting going on, according to the sources, with US special forces and SDF troops fighting ISIS in "the first quarter" of the town. As people have said, situation is ongoing, but probably another 12 hours will give us a more clearer picture. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian, per your latest additions, although unsourced, SDF already withdrew from their attacking positions after ISIL released water from the dam. If so, there is no more need for this article as it doesn't have any significant content, the "battle" lasted for only a short while, if it can be described a battle that is. Besides the ISIL counterattack was in SDF-control areas in noryh of Euphrates river aka Raqqa's western countryside, not in Tabqa or the dam. (http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=59764) I don't see any reason at all now to keep the article. I think it is better the article is deleted now. If there is a significant battle in the future, then we'll create it again.

MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC) It's a bit confusing, but from Southfront and other sources, it would seem there *was* a battle in the town. According to this article, https://southfront.org/us-special-forces-ypg-units-conduct-saboteur-raid-against-isis-in-tabqa/ US special forces and the SDF crossed the river and attacked the town - but they appear to have retreated. Whether it was a probe attack, recon, or seizeing individuals, it's hard to say. There was then a counterattack by IS. So this seems to be early stages of the battle. I think as others have said, best to wait to see what the next stage of this battle is, but as it is a large town, and would seem to be fairly fortified, it's certainly not just 20 guys taking a village. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There were 3 interpretations going the rounds: 1) nothing happened (it was nothing but rumours); 2) there was a commando raid aimed at ISIS commanders and records; 3) there was a landing between Tabqa and the dam in an attempt to take the dam from both sides. The last was reported to come from an official Raqqa Hawks source, but in the absence of subsequent reports it seems likely that they were inaccurate. The second (and especially the first) doesn't qualify as a battle, and there don't seem to be reliable sources for it either. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By now it's apparent that no major battle took place. This should be merged into the Raqqa offensive page. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:25, 6 February 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. G12; copyvio of www.onenov.in/listings/ajay_indian_television_actor Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kapoor (actor)

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

User:WMartin74 already deleted it once, seems to be a reupload Arkhaminsanity (talk) 11:52, 31 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heresh Kurdi

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't cut it. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, good sources have not been found, and subject fails WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 16:40, 3 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diomedes Raul Bermudez

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

Notability not supported by references - most of this is about what the subject is going to do. Promo piece. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weakly sourced article, which inevitably makes me think WP:AB. Searching for "Diomedes Raul Bermudez" I find nothing useful. Fails WP:GNG, del per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:29, 31 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Blake (director)

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

Autobiography that fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources. None of the awards are confirmed by sources, and one appears inaccurate; neither the Cannes festival nor the "Cannes Lions" advertising festival have given out any 2017 awards yet. Closest thing I can find for a confirming source for any of these awards is that an Alan Blake was on the jury for the 1981 British Arrows Awards. McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-created vanity piece, the "Videographer Awards" mentioned appears to be a marketing service where awards are paid for - their website says "Winning awards is an inexpensive way to distinguish your work from others. Prospects want to do business with award winning firms." Neither these awards or the person is notable. Melcous (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find a small mention in a book to go along with his Imdb page. The article sources and what I've found in searching still fail basic and WP:CREATIVE. Would reconsider if better sources are located. Gab4gab (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the mention in the book is to the same person?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one claim currently in the article, that he created a public service announcement for solar power, is so minor I am almost tempted this article should be speedy deleted per A7 for making no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of territorial entities where Tamil is an official language

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

Duplicates content at the main Tamil language article, namely the subsections #Legal status and #Geographic distribution. The list has only five entries, and further expansion is unlikely. I am nominating List of territorial entities where Malay is an official language (which has four entries) for the same reason.

Keep both - sorry, I looked at them both and noted that they have matching articles in multiples languages, including Tamil and Urdu. There is a good reason for these. They may be short but they are concise, unlike the much longer Tamil article. It is not instantly clear where Tamil is spoken. There is no reason we cannot have both, just as we have both for many other languages. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire list is repeated within the first four sentences of the Tamil language article, I don't know how much more "instantly clear" it could be. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - There is no rule which states that "List of territorial entities where X is an official language" articles must have at least a dozen entries. If there is a rule then the article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_as_an_official_language doesn't have a dozen entries. M.K.Dan (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 January 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. however unique it is, we can't write an encyclopedia article on it when we don't have reliable sources ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantr

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

Does not appear to be a notable online game; a search found only web forums and other unreliable websites. The game seems (or seemed?) to have been popular in the past (as I mentioned previously, it is frequently discussed on web forums), so I'm not nominating this for speedy deletion; however, the game lacks coverage in reliable sources, from what I have seen. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been removed a few times actually, however I'm hoping the Wikipedia community can hear out a few factors. The game is totally free - there are no purchases possible. Unlike other games in this day and age, where there's always a hidden purchase somewhere, or even an advert, this game has none of that. It's truly a community game, and as a result of money not being a motivating factor, it's existed for over 16 years. It shares the community, ethos and spirit of Wikipedia itself in a lot of ways - except the content being produced is fictional. That's the second point I'd like to make - this is a wonderfully unique and interesting game whereby it simulates societies like no other game I've ever come across. It has an eclectic mix of player types - from people learning a language, to people who like roleplay, to students wanting to improve their linguistic skills, to those who want to participate in simulating a society, to those who just want to play a text based game, and so much more. We feel that a Wikipedia presence would give us a pivotal legitimacy. We're not going to make any money from a Wikipedia listing, and we're not going to hide any facts or try to make it into an advert. We just want a place to share interesting facts (which we will source and provide) as the society evolves. We want to share our learnings in a reputable, safe place so that future readers can learn and read about a one-of-a-kind adventure that is yet to be repeated.

I'm pleading with the Wikipedia community to consider allowing this article in light of those points. I will personally take on responsibility for ensuring the article is very well sourced, and in time, begins giving back by sharing really interesting data and learnings that were generated from the game. In this way I hope I can bring value to Wikipedia. Lassaris (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Subjective importance, specifically the section "Age". Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, which points to other websites which could be a more accepting place to share your information. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but in my opinion, to cut a long story short, the article simply does not meet our inclusion guidelines. However, given that this is an AfD discussion, there will be seven (or more) days for others to make a consensus on the fate of the article, and it's still possible that the article will be kept if other users make valid arguments as to why the article should be kept. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like it deleted at AFD a decade ago too. If nothing has changed in the way of third parties writing articles about it, the odds aren't looking good - things were much more lenient in the 2000s, so if it couldn't survive then, I don't know how it would now. It needs to meet the WP:GNG - basically, having reliable sources write about the subject in signicant detail. I personally didn't find anything like that in my quick initial search... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can discuss this at length, but simply put, it is not notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was not able to find any evidence that it meets the WP:GNG. Would be happy to reconsider if further reliable sources were found. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 1 February 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 deleted . Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Ahmad Khan

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

Article about a person who fails WP:GNG. This article has been repeatedly deleted (under its current title) under Speedy WP:A7 and now contains elements of an article (My Little Heart) deleted previously as a hoax. Previously this article was created as Mumtaz (Physiotherapist) and it has been salted under the title Dr. M. Ahmad. Obvious sock puppets continuously recreate this article so I suggest salting. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:26, 31 January 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. czar 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assaad Tarabay

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

PROD removed by some SPAs lately, but still fails NACTOR as long as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable enough. Worthy mentions of subject in Mister World 2003 , Mister Lebanon and Lucas Gil. A former Mister Lebanon, and the First Lebanese to reach the Runner up of Mister World 2013 and properly mentioned on Mister world Wikipedia page as well. Dialotunt (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, the article about his successor, Lucas Gil, is similarly low-key. Samsara 08:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned on the official Mister World 2003 and Mister Lebanon wikipedia page. If this is to be taken down, I am of the opinion that Mister World 2003 and Mister Lebanon should as well be taken down for mentioning him. This could be readjusted to a Stub, allowing for further additions to the article. Mazati (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost nonexistent as to any mention in WP:RS. His own blog postings don't butter any parsnips. Mentioned on the official Mister World 2003 and Mister Lebanon wikipedia page. Wikipedia:Too soon. While accomplishments are real, fails WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the argument directly above is well-stated, and I as well failed to find enough coverage to argue that WP:GNG is met. I did look for sources on heyhotstaff.com to see if a merge might be in order, but also had no luck. No prejudice against recreation of the topic if more coverage appears. It is a well-written page, a bummer to see it go. But often hard to predict notability ahead of time. Yvarta (talk) 01:49, 2 February 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. Agree that there is nothing to assert the notability of this one episode in particular. As Hammersoft says, the list of episodes is sufficient. I'm not going to go ahead and delete any of the rest of episode articles, because they weren't bundled into this AfD, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a bundled AfD for the rest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris By Night 103

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

No evidence that the article qualifies WP:GNG. One source with poorly written content - if sources to indicate it can pass WP:GNG then I'd still suggest blowing it up and starting again. DrStrauss talk 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for SOFTDEL due to previous PROD/dePROD joe decker ^talk 02:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 08:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to assert notability. The one (now dead) link would apparently support when the work was taped. That doesn't assert notability either. We have no way of verifying any of it. Further, there's no claim of significance. This is possibly even a candidate for WP:CSD#A7. There are a ton of these; see List of Paris by Night episodes. A cursory review of some of the others that have articles show no claims of significance in them either. The list is, by itself, probably sufficient. This episode article needs to go, as do all the others. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Uddin Chowdhury

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

Wikipedia is not Facebook. The subject has a Facebook page,[7] and has asked there for help enriching his Wikipedia article. The article has been tagged for BLP sources since it was created. Despite those appeals, the article cites a single reliable source, published by a former employer, that contains a one-line directory entry for the subject. Searches of the usual types, by article title, by "Md. Jalaluddin Chaudhury" as in the source, and by name in Bengali script, found no independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no inherent notability of district judges. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not for district judges, no, but for the secretary of a country's bar council? I think that attests to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you point to a guideline or other examples where secretary of a country's bar council has an article. I fail to see inherent notability of that position either. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion. You really don't think the executive head of the national lawyers' organisation for an entire country might be notable? Fair enough, but I completely disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it change your opinion if the secretary weren't the executive head? Because they aren't; the vice-chairman is. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good point. even if he was executive head, there is no inherent notability attached to such a position. Necrothesp would be better served finding actual significant coverage to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not what it implies here. It's like the difference between the chairman of the board of a company and the CEO. The latter is the actual executive head of the company. Same with the secretary of this organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: You may be reading more into the page of officers (who aren't members of the Bar Council) than is there. The comparison to a CEO is not apt. My reading of The Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order and Rules, 1972 is that the position is what would commonly be called secretary-treasurer. They are responsible for convening the first meeting, after which ordinary meetings are convened by the chairman or vice-chairman. They are responsible for taking minutes. Certain things must be delivered to or by the secretary. Payments are made to the secretary. They maintain a cash book and disburse funds for all petty expenditures, but no payment shall be made except upon the order of the chairman or vice-chairman. In an emergency, the chairman may designate any person to act as secretary. In my experience, a CEO makes key decisions on policy and strategy. The secretary is a day-to-day administrator, but they are not a decision maker, it is not a leadership position. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would disagree about the role of a secretary in an organisation such as this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, you're more than welcome to your opinion. I'm having trouble following your reasoning, though. Do you think the secretary does something vital that I'm not seeing in the Bar Council Rules? The organisation would certainly fail if no one ordered stationery, took minutes, and kept the accounts, but does performing those functions, for any sort of organization, really make a person notable? --Worldbruce (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The secretary runs the day-to-day business of the association. He is therefore effectively its chief executive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you have done a search as always for significant coverage to establish this person meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I have expressed an opinion and would cite WP:BURO and WP:IAR to counter those who incorrectly continue to believe that Wikipedia is bound by strict rules that are incapable of being broken even on the grounds of common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR hardly trumps notability guidelines. Otherwise it would be a free for all for every single article. What surprises me the most, is that you are extremely unwilling to use the best means to save an article, prove there exists significant coverage. Instead you waste your time arguing inherent notability based on position. You used to argue all ambassadors are inherently notable, then it softened to all ambassadors to "major" (and not defined ) countries are notable. Neither holds any weight and is not backed by consensus. You never use the proper channel and open a discussion on WP:BIO to get a certain occupation to have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in fact WP:BURO states Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. None of your " position X is inherently notable " ever reflect consensus. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you merely reiterate your mistaken apparent belief that there are rules on Wikipedia that must be obeyed at all costs, despite IAR, a policy I might add, clearly stating there are not. As to ambassadors, I still maintain my belief that they are all inherently notable and will continue to do so. Why don't you just accept that our opinions differ on this and move on? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you accept that your opinion of inherent notability is not backed by community consensus? Secondly why do you never make the effort to find sources? As an administrator you very well know it's the best way to get a keep outcome. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in fact every time you invoke WP:IAR it really is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. In all my years if Wikipedia, if a person does not have an inherently notable position as defined in a notability guideline then they must satisfy the significant coverage test. WP:IAR can be used if there is consensus, not the opinion of one person that consistent gets disproven in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a "this is my opinion" argument. Something that you, hidebound as you appear to be by non-existent rules and bureaucratic procedures, are clearly unable to accept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it is a proven fact that not all ambassadors are inherently notable. So now you believe things that have proven overwhelming community consensus not granting notability. WP:IAR is not intended as a vehicle for one opinion !voters to overturn long running and overwhelming community consensus. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's "proven" is it? Really? By whom? There is no "overwhelming community consensus", as you know very well, and even if there were it wouldn't be a "proven fact", since this is Wikipedia not the real world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if ambassadors are inherently notable, none of their articles would be deleted. QED. You're either too lazy or too stubborn to look for sources to establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I believe and know all police inspectors to be inherently notable. Because I believe this, no police inspector article can ever be deleted. They are simply inherently notable. This is fact and I will argue this at every AfD even if no one agrees. I will not bother to get police inspectors included in a notability guideline because WP:IAR gives a free pass to turn anything notable. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New voices, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not satisfying our standards since it shows he was only an area judge. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 6 February 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; notability thoroughly established sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The prior deletion discussion, which closed as delete, was 6.5 years ago. The circumstances have changed, as the actor has had several significant roles in the time since then. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrel Jackson Williams

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let me try to look into this: with one lead role in a TV series under his belt, the subject would seem to make a good case for notability. But let me see if I can find some sourcing to back that up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main role in a Disney TV series for four seasons, main role in a Disney TV film, main role in an upcoming IFC TV series; all well sourced now. --King Rk (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not the greatest sources, but I'll attempt to look for better later today... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have secondary sources, please list them. This was my reason for nominating for deletion. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, I'm not even done sourcing the article yet, but it's a pretty clear "keep". Lead in one TV series; has a main role in a second upcoming TV series; co-starring role in a TV movie (which, granted, is low profile, but still) – this all points in the direction of clearing WP:NACTOR. (If Williams got any press for appearing in Failure to Launch, which I have yet to check on, it would completely cinch it.) But I think what definitely puts it over the top is the two Kids Choice Awards nominations, including one just this year. I think Williams pretty clearly meets the notability requirements. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added since nomination bring the reference problem up to scratch. Passes on multiple criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:39, 7 February 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 Snow keep. Overwhelming consensus that topic is notable. A few commenters suggested that the article could at some point be merged with other articles, and the nomination itself was on the basis that the content strongly overlaps other articles. However, merging can be done at any time through a normal merge discussion. The only delete !vote missed the traditional use of "massacre" in US politics, such as Saturday Night Massacre mentioned by Tlhslobus. 50.0.136.56 (talk)

Monday Night Massacre

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Monday Night Massacre

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

Not notable. All relevant info can be found in the articles Sally Yates and Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States". Surachit (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For now, it's notable and covers more than just Sally Yates, such as the ICE director dismissal. This may change over the next few days. Disappointed you didn't even try to discuss it on the talk page and just slapped the AfD tag on it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Fuzheado's comments.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 06:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion on the article's talk page. Plenty of sources, and I'm normally very cautious on such scandals. Even if one objects to the name, the scandal is noteworthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now - It could grow into something larger with a lot more firings, and the name has been used a lot in media and the article is well sourced. If it doesn't in a while, we can merge the article with another article. --Puget Sound (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Buggie111 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 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 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand the potential recentism with the firing and the sensational title may raise some concerns, but the incident has raised high-profile, international awareness (whether you'd like that or not, we're not to decide what media covers). I would urge a keep and possibly a title change if the name "Monday Night Massacre" bothers people so much. --AsianHippie (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and reflects a notable event that needs an entry on the encyclopedia. Agree with discussion on Talk page. VERY unhappy with AfD tagging. It reflects VERY poorly on Wikipedia this is even happening. It reinforces perception and reality that AfD systemically is badly done. I am proud this article exists. BrillLyle (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title is too sensational and this event is currently more relevant to the news than to an encyclopedia. A "massacre" also involves the indiscriminate killing of a large number of people; this event involves the firing of one person, and not for an indiscriminate reason. CMD1992 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also delete Saturday Night Massacre - after all, that only involved the firing of 3 people? Tlhslobus (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is likely to be viewed as a significant event for a long time. If another president had done something like this in the manner Trump did it (besides Nixon of course), it would be in the history books (and Wikipedia) for sure. What's surprising is the rhetoric the White house used saying it was a "betrayal," very strong language. Ashvio (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keeps, and suggest a WP:SNOW close asap. Jus da fax 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - ~~as far as I can tell, nom didn't even give a reason why this should be deleted.~~ Meets GNG per current event that is sure to have lasting notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody moved the nominator's rationale. Dustin (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the Nom's comment back at the top. Hopefully I haven't broken any rules by doing it, but if I have - WP:IAR. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - no rules violated; it's much appreciated. I thought it was odd there were no reasons listed! —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points from BrillLyle -- Inploded (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Fuzheado's comments. M.Karelin (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you want a page merged into another page, you're supposed to start a Merger discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above arguments. --Malanoqa (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per most of the above arguments, and per WP:SNOW. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:01, 31 January 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeya Lita

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

Failed WP:AUTHOR. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure looks like WP:BASIC is met to me, e.g., by the Independent reference and [8]. --joe decker ^talk 14:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Online news portal is not highly reliable source, even they have no printed version. Alongside subject does not passed basic criteria. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Independent references are present. I think that the article can be kept. Zombalu (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:19, 7 February 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 Cindy Bullens. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steal the Night

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 03:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's a review at Allmusic.com, and I found another one in Stereo Review. Searching is more complicated and the online presence is rather sparse, given that it was released in the late 1970s. Redirect and merge to Cindy Bullens might be another constructive option. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To Vejvančický's sources add a short item from Billboard.[9] Other sources seem to exist in GBooks but hiding behind snippets, notably including a rating and brief review in the Rolling Stone Record Guide.[10] Bullens was an object of critical attention for a little while, even if much of it can't be seen on line. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have no objection to a redirect. The above sources seem a little weak for WP:GNG. Both Allmusic and Billboard reviewed just about every album released in the '70's. The Allmusic review consists of one sentence about the album and the Billboard contained 2 sentences. The Stereo Review reference is more of a listing as oppose to a review. The 1979 version of Rolling Stone Record Guide contained listings for every album available at the time of it's printing. These sources seem to indicate the album existed but not that it was notable. A redirect or merge to Cindy Bullens seems more appropriate than a "stand alone" page. CBS527^Talk

Redirect to artist. When all you have are snippets, you don't have enough to do justice to the topic. Write summary style in the parent. czar 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your proposed solution is good Cbs527 and Czar. I have no objections against merger and redirect.--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:50, 6 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death.Becomes.Her (Band)

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

Looks like a badly written and poorly sourced promo piece for their 2017 EPs. No evidence they ever made it into the charts. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 02:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were Malaysian based underground band, and of course they never make it to the international charts and such. The were only recognised by Malaysia citizens who are involved in the underground culture and by a few of Singaporean and that's all. Of course you can't find anything about them in the NYT or Google. However I will try to provide the scan copy of articles and interview with them as the new sources. - Fansuri 01:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's creator's words pretty much state why the band isn't notable: "They were Malaysian based underground band, and of course they never make it to the international charts and such. The were only recognised by Malaysia citizens who are involved in the underground culture and by a few of Singaporean and that's all. Of course you can't find anything about them in the NYT or Google." Of course using Google hits as a sole source for establishing notability is a bad idea, but my point is that coverage for the band is indeed lacking; in fact, I couldn't seem to find anything about the band online at all, most of what I could find were for completely unrelated bands with the same name. Assuming good faith, given that the band's activities began before the internet became mainstream in Asia, it's possible that offline coverage could exist; indeed, the article cites a number of magazine articles. I'm willing to change my !vote if excerpts of these sources could be found and are deemed to be reliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reluctant to vote because there's so little I can see. How does an article only 11 days old have so many dead link references? I'll look again in a few days in case there's more to look at. Gab4gab (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Group seems to have no coverage by reliable sources. What can be found is about members activity in other group. Fails WP:BAND. Gab4gab (talk) 20:30, 31 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zootopia (franchise)

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

The article doesn't provide much detail that Zootopia-related articles do not already currently provide/link to.

An earlier version of this page was nominated for deletion (and later deleted).

The majority of the content referred to is common to Disney films - a graphics novel, 'The Art of ...', and the addition of characters to Disney video games. This is not exclusive to Zootopia. The others referred to are red linked, and Zootopia 2 has not been announced yet by the studio. MidnightObservation (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it could hardly be called a franchise at this point, especially considering that its' sequel isn't even confirmed yet, much less released. Verified Cactus (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because it is all just rumors. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looks like a WP:TOOSOON situation to me. I nominated a similar article last year; essentially, having only one or two films does not typically generate coverage that is about the franchise as a whole. Instead, the majority of coverage is specifically centered around specific elements of the franchise – in this case, the majority of available coverage is specifically centered around Zootopia, the first and only film in the franchise. Only when there has been significant discussion in reliable sources about the impact of the whole franchise (see, for example, the franchise article for Star Wars) should there be a standalone article that is about the whole franchise. Otherwise, standalone franchise articles would merely duplicate information that can already be found at (or could be added to) the individual film articles. Accordingly, I would instead recommend adding information about the book and spin-off media somewhere in the Zootopia article. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make Draft namespace page: If it is determined to keep this information, a Draft namespace page could be made. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No justification for the article's existence this early on. Sro23 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Radhakrishnan

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

WP:NNC Dan Koehl (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG - already speedily deleted previously. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish her all the best in her career, but much WP:TOOSOON if at all. She won a low level competition where the entry cost is greater than the prize. Those who "win" have the opportunity to sing one song at a concert, maximum length of a few minutes, and they must pay a fee for entry to the concert and to sing. It is very much a vanity competition, designed around the organizers making a profit from the competitors. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too wish her well but it's WP:TOOSOON and the only sources I could find on her are that she is married to actor Sudeep.FITINDIA (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, WP:TOOSOON.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:42, 5 February 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. (non-admin closure) f eminist 15:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Zolotukhin

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

Non-notable person. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNC. XXN, 21:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?. Fails WP:Prof#C1: highest citation is entered twice in GS. not sure about GNG. Xxanthippe (talk).
Keep -- full professor for 25 years at a major institution; some of his works have been published in English: Worldcat Identities. More sources are likely to be available in Russian.

He is also Professor Emeritus at the University of Stavanger. So there's some international recognition as well, or perhaps sources in Norwegian. Here's an author's bio link; this looks similar to bios of notable academics. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No article in the Russian Wikipedia that I could find. The article creator is very active there, so why no article on this Russian academic? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know why he doesn't have an article in the Russian Wikipedia, but we really can't consider that. I believe he meets WP:ACADEMIC based on all his positions, papers and various prizes.[11][12][13]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K.e.coffman. ru-wiki has a fifth of the articles we do, so the fact that they don't cover Zolotukhin (yet) is neither here nor there. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just his work with the World Petroleum Forum alone is probably enough to make him notable. I would like to see more information on him, but the sources above clearly show he is notable. I am hoping people who know Russian can paraphrase them into English so we can get a better sense of who this person is. I have come to realize that people in the hard sciences are very often notable when thought not to be. Remember people can pass other plancks of academic notability besides 1. Being a notable academic is possible by any planck, not meeting planck one does not mean the person is not a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 5 February 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 no consensus. The issue with including the supposed ethnicities of those involved in the crimes is a matter that can be resolved editorially. Sandstein 11:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live streaming crimes

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

~~This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTDIR as it is a simple listing with no context.~~ See my later comment. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom as this is non notable collection of events. Kansiime (chat) 23:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and work on it --OSchwarzer (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/27/rising-numbers-of-criminals-are-using-facebook-to-document-their-crimes

Keep and encourage improvement. The 2017 Uppsala rape Facebook live streaming incident and 2017 Chicago torture incident, (someone please tell me that the Chicago crime took place in a town named Streamwood by coincidence) together with the technical and legal issues Facebook is encountering in what I take to be good faith efforts to stop this sort of thing make it notable. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:HEYMANN upgrade is desperately needed. I made a start, will return when possible, but help is appreciated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the WP:HEYMANN. The article was a paltry list when I found it, but the topic itself has sort of exploded in recent weeks: we already have 2 articles on recent cases (one rape; one torture) that came to public attention largely because both were live streamed. It's new, but it's a topic. 2 academic article now in the article were published before livestreaming, but are recent and call attention to the recent online precursors. Sourcing is now more than sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this article has been improved past being a list of events with no context and should be kept. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Without comment on the article's condition when nominated, it's acceptable at this point and I'm seeing plenty of sources to support notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:HEYMANN applies here. Looks much better now than when it was nominated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article currently appears to present an example of WP:BIAS. Maybe this is only an appearance of bias and is unintentional, but there are specific racial or nationality descriptions of alleged perpetrators and victims listed in an inconsistent way. One of the instances states nationality, others do not. It also describes the alleged perpetrators as "refugees," yet none of the sources in the wikilinked article 2017 Uppsala rape Facebook live streaming incident use that term – this is WP:OR and lacks verification WP:V. One specifically states a person is "white" and others are "African American", whereas in other examples there are no comparable adjectives. This does not seem to represent WP:NPOV. This article names living people, so a higher standard is required per WP:LIVE. As currently written, this article is in contravention of WP policy. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:37, 8 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information Radio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. This is a small network of low-power tourist information radio stations, which is a class of radio station that is not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA -- the problem here being that these stations are now exempt from having to have a CRTC license at all, and thus do not pass NMEDIA's licensing condition. (For example, it's impossible for us to verify whether an exempt station is still in operation or not, because without a license they don't need to return to the CRTC for renewals or revocations, so there are no new "decisions" for the CRTC to publish.) None of the stations are the subject of any reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and they were redirected to the main article about the parent company accordingly -- however, earlier today an anonymous IP reverted them all back to standalone articles again despite the lack of any valid or policy-compliant reason for doing so. I'd restore them all back to redirects again, but in reality the parent company fails WP:CORP as well -- literally the only sourcing present in its article is the same pre-exemption CRTC decisions that are sourcing the radio stations, with no evidence of the media coverage that's actually required. So, in reality, there's simply no legitimate basis for keeping the parent company or redirecting the stations back to it again -- they're all just plain deletes. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in these articles, but I got a notification based on creating a redirect a long time ago. That said, from a brief glance, it looks like the deletion rationale here is contrary to WP:NTEMP. If they received CRTC approval in the past (and if this is considered to have been sufficient for them to have passed WP:NMEDIA at that time), why is it important that the renewals are no longer required? Ongoing coverage is not necessary, after all. Dekimasuよ! 17:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being CRTC-licensed is not, in and of itself, a guaranteed permanent "keep forever" for a radio station regardless of its sourceability or lack thereof. The CRTC license documents can provide support for a temporary presumption of notability — but the station still fails the notability test in the end if real reliable sources besides the license documents themselves can never be provided. They provide temporary assistance in building an article early on — but they are not enough sourcing in and of themselves to get an article kept forever if no better sources can ever be located. And secondly, the reason it's important that the renewals are no longer required is that without those documents, it is no longer possible for us to properly verify things like whether the station is actually still operating or not, if it has ceased operation then when or why, and on and so forth. Before WP:WPRS started cracking down on these, we had articles that had spent ten years saying "It is unknown if the station is still in operation", because their license exemptions had been granted as early as 2003 — but the issue being that their operational status was not just unknown, but entirely unknowable, and that's why exempt-class stations can't be kept. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find Bearcat's reasoning persuasive. We can't keep what we can't verify. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 7 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szlachecki

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

Invalid disambig page. Not a single place in the list may be called simply "Szlachecki". The word is simply an adjective from szlachta and means "(of) noble" Just like the page "Upper (disambiguation) is not supposed to list Upper Silesia or South (disambiguation) does not list South Wales. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above - all partial matches. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:PTM. None of these are ambiguous. — Gorthian (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 1 February 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 deleted by Sandstein as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheetal Agashe. (non-admin closure) f eminist 15:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Agashé

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG no indication of independent notability. I failed to find anything to support his musical career. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the following articles for deletion created by the same sock master Simbalillyoreo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Sheetal Agashe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kaustubh Marathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – GSS (talk|c|em) 06:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, he seems to be an aspiring musician who once recorded a demo and has used family contacts to get lessons, put on a minor show etc. Basically seems to be the Indian equivalent of a UK pub singer. That he is related to a lot of apparently notable people is irrelevant to his own notability. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meeting WP:NMUSIC Athachil (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have deleted the Adi Agashé article per the discussion herein. Two additional articles (Sheetal Agashe and Kaustubh Marathe) were added to this discussion on 06:40, 24 January 2017. One !vote occurred prior to this time only for the Adi Agashé article, and another !vote that occurred after this time appears to only address Adi Agashé, per the singular pronouns used in the !vote ("he seems to be ...", "That he is related to ..."). It's unclear if the following two !votes are referring to all three nominations or only the initial one, so relisting this discussion for further input. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wildlife Secrets Magazine

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

declined prod. Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 gnews hit LibStar (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete Looks like it should be notable but cannot find any real independent reliable secondary sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one peer-reviewed journal article (Benjamin L. Allen; et al. (2013), "As clear as mud: A critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes", Biological Conservation, 159: 158–174) that mentions the magazine as a "popular media" source. This does give it some notability, but I still believe that it warrants a deletion. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:02, 4 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atia School of Paramedics

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

Does not meet the General Notability Guidelines or WP:CORP. Non-notable medical training organisation. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a training institute, it's not a degree-awarding school, thus unconvincing in that alone. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per GNG. Cannot be expanded or fixed given expected information about it. South Nashua (talk) 17:27, 2 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dur (film)

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

WP:NFILM. I can't see any improvements then the earlier version Dur (2016 film) which was deleted after expiration of PROD. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no references to sources. Searching found nothing helpful. Fails WP:NFILM. Happy to reconsider if RSes are found. Gab4gab (talk) 20:19, 31 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Great NHS Heist

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

Non-notable film, no independent coverage, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 13:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly fails WP:NFILM. While researching this I was briefly confused by the similarity in title with a Panorama episode; don't be like me. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage about the film. Although the filmmaker has appeared on Thom Hartmann and George Galloway, the topic was not the film specifically. It appears the filmmaker himself may have some claim to notability but the film does not as yet meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:34, 4 February 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Rabatsch

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

Reason Delete. The subject does not meet a single one of the requirements for WP:NOTABLE. ((See also e.g. WP:INVALIDBIO - relationships with well-known persons do not confer notability - and this relationship is not even suitably evidenced). Rabatsch is alleged by one unreliable contemporary self-publicist(August Kubizek) to have once been briefly the object of Adolf Hitler's affections. It is conceded that Hitler never spoke a word to her and that she was completely unaware of any such intentions on his part. No source documentation exists about this supposed relationship apart from Kubizek's discredited memoirs, which were written long after the supposed event. Nothing else is known about her and she undertook no actions which were WP:NOTABLE. Nothing which she did altered the course of the world, human consciousness or knowledge one iota. The article could be deleted altogether or, at best, replaced by a redirect to August Kubizek. I am astounded that this article has been promoted to a GA; whilst it might possibly meet GA standards (and I personally would contest that) it is absurd that no editor considered its notability at the time.Smerus (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree wholeheartedly with the nomination. A search for reliable sources hasn't turned anything up. Also - a "Good Article" that doesn't include a crucial detail like the date or place of death? That's very surprising - I recently rated an article as a C Class based on the omission of that type of detail. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hamann seems like a good source to me establishing the importance of Rabatsch in Hitler's youth [14] and the rest of the sources seem acceptable enough. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, Roland's Nazi Women discusses her in depth from page 14 to 17, and you can read most of it on google books, albeit without page numbers and with the different last name (and mentioning Isak as another possible last name, by the way). The different names probably should be discussed in the article, but isn't a reason to discard the source. Haman and Roland are both heavily based on Kubizek, and there are at least a dozen books on google books which mention here, all basically based on Kubizek, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per INVALIDBIO. The sources we have well-establish Hitler had a crush on this girl and she didn't even know his name but the sources aren't about her, at all. WP:BASIC states that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." so that eliminates the Kubizek book. The Daily Mail piece shamefully recounts Kubizek's book; there's no analysis or fact-checking in evidence. Hitler is the subject of almost every sentence that mentions her in the Haman book. Nazi Women says her last name was Jansten and the article doesn't even mention this inconsistency. Like Exemplo347, I've had not one but two GA noms of mine refused (Rudy Boesch and Ernie Brace) because of a lack of detail and I had way more information about my subjects than this article shows. @Calvin999: You performed the GA review. What did you find when you researched the sources? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deemed it notable at the time of passing and it is a position I maintain. — Calvin999 18:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. I'd like to know what you found when you researched the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks showed that the information is accurate and reliable. What have you found? — Calvin999 19:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin99 (or any other editor) 'deeming it notable' is irrelevant - it's just WP:OPINION. Please justify this article against the clear criteria for notability. If you can't, then out it goes.--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I !voted keep because it is my opinion that the article does meet the notability guidelines and I tried to explain why. My understanding is that we are seeking a consensus of opinions about whether or not the subject is suitable for an article, so I'm not sure what is the problem about giving an opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: No, we're not looking for mere opinions. Per WP:AFDEQ, "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Rationales that are policy-based are what's needed. You can voice an opinion but it might not go far. @Calvin999: My comments are above. WP:GACR requires that the coverage "addresses the main aspects of the topic". The article is arguably focused solely on Hitler's infatuation with her which is why we're now questioning notability. This article doesn't even state when the subject died (if she's dead, which she probably is). This was your job as a GA reviewer. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus is about opinions, though, no? Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can say "out it goes" when there is a consensus for it to go, Smerus, which there isn't. And I know what is involved in reviewing, Chris troutman, I done enough of them. If you feel it doesn't meet it, then that's your entitlement. Aside from that, there is no need to adopt a passive-aggressive, personal tone. It is not very mature. — Calvin999 23:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What I mean to say is, !voting "I like it" or "I don't like it" isn't valid. If your opinion is "I think this passes GNG" or "I think this fails GNG" then that's fine. The issue becomes when an editor says that a subject is or is not notable without pointing to specific policies or guidelines. I would say an opinion is absent a basis in our guidelines. If you can point to some guidance (even an essay) then you have a rationale, not just an opinion. Whether or not a subject passes GNG should be more of an objective fact than an opinion although editors can disagree with interpretation. I hope that makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, you repeatedly bring this back to what you have done, your experience, etc. That is not acceptable. There are rules about notability; I didn't make them and neither did you. But I accept them, and apparently you don't. Whatever your experience and opinions, they cannot trump the clear guidelines for notability. You have yet to demonstrate that the article does meet those guidelines, and your silence on this aspect (whilst at the same time insisting on your own capacity to judge in this matter) in fact speaks volumes.Smerus (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to August Kubizek, where his memoir already redirects. I am proposing this on the understanding that no other significant sources about Hitler's alleged infatuation with Rabatsch/Isak exist. Because the story certainly has had legs, repeatedly picked up in other books and in periodicals since Kubized published it, making it hard to delete. It is the kind of factoid that users expect to find on Wikipedia. And she seems at least to have moved at one time in intersecting circles with those of Hitler's Austrian youth. However, given the paucity of evidence of a relationship beyond mere acquaintance, and the probability that Kubizek misremembered, distorted, or exaggerated events under whatever pressures/incentives affected a youthful acquaintence of Hitler's when writing a post-War memoir more than 4 decades after the events he describes, it may be better to confine this withing the article in the section on the memoir than have it as an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good argument for redirect, which I can accept.--Smerus (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my feeling is that the importance of Rabatsch was not based on the real person, but on Hitler's ideal of her. In fact, many sources do not give a last name, only calling her Stefanie. However, "Stefanie" has, in my opinion, been the subject of many in depth analyses. I've added a short section to the article discussing these analyses based on Zalampas' discussion of the research, citing, in addition to Zalampas, Werner Maser, Robert G. L. Waite, Bradley F. Smith, and Franz Jetzinger, all very notable Hitler biographers (note, I did not find Smith's work, and only cite it as being cited by Zalampas [based on say where you got it]).[15] Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the only importance of this supposed relationship (and we have no evidence that there was any such relationship from either of those involved in it, only the allegations of Kubizek) was 'Hitler's ideal of Stefanie', then she does not deserve an article in her own right. Zalampas's self-published book is scarcely a reliable source or opinion - she simply mashes up the comments of others in the context of Adlerian psychoanalysis. (See the review of her book here - which by the way also comments on the book's numerous spelling mistakes and "glaring factual errors", some of which are listed there). I don't feel this book can be regarded as a respectable source. I would like to see some evidence that the other authors named have given any 'in depth analysis' of this supposed relationship - as far as I can see they just mention Kubizek's story in passing.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "deserve an article", inclusion isn't based on good behavior. I'm also not convinced that the book was self-published, it was published by Bowling Green University Popular Press, now owned by the University of Wisconsin Press, I think. My guess (based on the Acknowledgements) is the book is based on a PhD thesis written under the supervision of Jay Kloner at the University of Louisville, so I wouldn't consider it a terrible source in spite of a negative review. If the question is whether or not Maser[16], Waite[17], Smith[18], Jetzinger[19][20], Trevor-Roper, and Kershaw[21] give the subject significant coverage, I think they do and invite you to look at those sources. I also want to suggest that the discussion of the analysis of Rabatsch may be appropriate for the article, Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and if the consensus were that she is not notable, that this article might be redirected to that one. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing these 'sources', but the snippets that I find from Google books all suggest that the writers believe Kubizek was untruthful and that the relationship with 'Stefanie' may have been a complete fantasy. I think your suggestion of a redirect to Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and an additional section about 'Stefanie' there, is very constructive and I would support it if you wish to propose it formally.--Smerus (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in the text about historian's perspectives of Rabatsch in the article and in the sources themselves, the sources do not all believe her to be a complete fantasy. Some believe that she may have been overemphasized, while others think Kubizek's writing is more truthful. One or two take a middle road, that Kubizek could have been making something out of very little, but that the episode is illustrative of the types of influences Hitler had during that period. There is nothing wrong with an article about which there is only one or few primary sources (analyses do look at more than just Kubizek, after all), given that there are multiple secondary or tertiary sources, so I don't see why it matters that Kubizek is the main primary source and that he is unreliable. Prominent historians find her story deserves in depth analysis, so per GNG, she seems to me a suitable subject for inclusion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to all these sources save via Google books which only gives snippets. These snippets however do not give me the impression that these sources deal 'in depth' with 'Stefanie'. It looks to me like thwey deal with her just in passing in a sentence. Can you please give indication of whether they actually do treat the topic 'in depth' - a paragraph - a chapter - or what? If the consensus is that Kubizek's narrative - whether truthful or invented - is indicative of something in Hitler's psyche, then in fact this indicates that your proposal to make the article a link to Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler is the correct path. The fact remains that we know almost nothing about the subject of this article - only that she (perhaps) gave rise to a disturbance in Hitler's mentality. 'Stefanie' thus continues to fail the WP guidelines for notability.--Smerus (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working from memory and the google books links: Maser's mention is only a few sentences across a couple paragraphs; Stefanie is one of the themes of Waite's book, 178-180 is a subsection titled "Stefanie: The Unapproachable Love", and Stefanie is a repeated theme in that entire chapter, "The Child as Father to the Man"; Smith cites Jetzigner in a brief rejection of Stefanie in footnotes, but he does point out that Reinhold Hanisch is a second primary source about Stefanie after Kubizek (I have not seen what Hanisch wrote/said); The four pages from Jetzinger I cite are a solid section of a chapter about Stefanie; Kershaw, who was in the article already and which I didn't add, gives Stefanie a couple sentences across a couple paragraphs; Trevor-Roper is writing, I think, in an introduction to the Kubizek book, and I don't know what it says; Zalampas' discussion is largely in footnotes, but includes, I think, two paragraphs in the text; Hamann, who is more biographical and less psycho-analytical, gives Stefanie about three pages across two areas; Donald writes in a book not about Hitler in particular, "The first to find herself the focus of Hitler's attentions was Stephanie Rabatsch of Linz in 1905 (Hitler was then 17) and she is significant only in that Hitler wrongly thought her Jewish, yet did not see this as a problem". Hamann, Zalampas, Jetzinger, and especially Waite give Stefanie more than passing coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material about Rabatsch is founded on a memoir published post-WWII by a one-time Hitler cronie; which is why I continue to think that a redirect to August Kubizek is the best way to present this material. A redirect will set the entire fabric of tenuous conjecture - and Note that all material regarding a Hitler-Rabatsch relationship is based on speculation that surfaced after Hitler's death - within an intelligible context. A redirect also helps minimize the inevitably ongoing problems with misleading users with a lede that now reads" "Hitler fell in love with her after she passed by him during her daily daughter-mother stroll in Linz, glancing at him." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It feels to me that you aren't addressing the GNG claim and are understating the amount of primary sources the secondary sources use. First, Hamann, Zalampas, Jetzinger, and Waite give her, I feel, in depth coverage. And second, Kubizek and Smith cite Hanisch and Hamann and Jetzinger cite an interview with Rabatch by Georg Stefan Troller and Axel Corti for their 1973 documentary Ein junger Mann aus dem Innviertel. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim "in-depth coverage" when you don't even know when she died. This article isn't about Stefanie, the person. What we have is an article about Hitler's infatuation with a girl named Stefanie. That's what was written. I stand by my claim of INVALIDBIO. Let whomever wants to keep this argue to WP:USERFY and they can rewrite this to focus on Hitler's fascination with this girl, because that's what the sources discuss. (I don't think the crush he had is notable, anyway.) Chris Troutman (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some value in retaining a short section and the search term, because Wikipedia has a noble role enabling users to check out alternative facts that circulate out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: The quality of the sources you cite so assiduously continues to cast doubt on the viability of this article. All of these authors are simply speculating on the (alternative-)facts set out by the dubious Kubizek. This is exemplified in the ludicrous quote you give from your source Donald: "The first to find herself the focus of Hitler's attentions was Stephanie Rabatsch of Linz in 1905 (Hitler was then 17) and she is significant only in that Hitler wrongly thought her Jewish, yet did not see this as a problem". There is not a shred of evidence outside Kubizek that Hitler ever knew of Rabatsch, let alone that he thought she was Jewish. This is a nonsense story which does not deserve an article; any mention on WP can only be justified, as E.M.Gregory says, to assist in identification of fantasies and alternative facts.--Smerus (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with this comment by User:Smerus. How do we draw the eyes of highly experienced editors here so that we can resolve this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much of the story of her life as Kubizek told is probably not very true. In fact, I expanded the "Scholarly reactions" section", which now better reflects that. I also agree that Rabatsch was not Jewish. I do not know what Hitler thought about the matter. I think if kept, the article should be more careful in wording to make it clear that most of what it says is based on Kubizek and may be unreliable. To me, these issues seem to be about content and not about notability, and I agree that the content could be improved in those ways and others.

All that said, I think she passes the bar in terms of coverage by secondary sources for GNG. From your wording, I think you propose that because her story was largely fabricated, her case is slightly different. I think WP:FRINGE (and WP:NFICT) is a great guideline to bring up for this article, both in terms of content and notability. I hadn't thought about notability from the perspective of fringe, and agree that from that perspective the case isn't as great. In particular, NFRINGE says, "References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." The rest of NFRINGE seems to suggest this case is fine. That sentence could be read to agree with the perspective that, since most secondary source references to Rabatsch are primarily in the context of a discussion of Kubizek, a redirect to Kubizek makes sense. Also, since many of the references to Rabatsch are really about Hitler's psyche, mention of that could go to Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and the two articles should link to each other in their discussion of Rabatsch.

With all this in mind, I think that if made a redirect, the redirect should point to Kubizek, but some of the analysis material could go to the psychopathography article, should the editors of that article deem it useful. My !vote and first preference is still keep, for the GNG reasons I have already brought and because I think the coverage (barely) satisfies NFRINGE because there are multiple primary sources and the secondary sources discuss multiple aspects of the story. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Kubizek is unreliable that should be spelled out (with citations) early in the article. Statements based on his book should be then prefaced by the disclaimer "According to Kubizek ..." so it is clear that much of the article consists of alternative facts. But major sources – the Daily Mail, Der Spiegel, ZDF – have repeated Kubizek's tale of unrequited love. It has thus become a notable meme. Sufficient independent sources have commented on the subject to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be deleted, but in the meantime i have edited it on the lines you suggest.--Smerus (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the section on "Significance of the story" to itemize the various writers who have discussed the story and to name their books. It would help to also cite some source that says Kubizek is unreliable, and that no serious historian cites him, not just make an unsourced assertion to that effect. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, the subject is notable only for the young Adolf Hitler's alleged infatuation with her, and the only source for that infatuation is his boyhood companion August Kubizek. However, given Hitler's huge historical impact almost any detail of his life is significant. Many writers on Hitler have chosen to accept Kubizek's account and to discuss the unrequited love in their works. No evidence has been given that Kubizek is an unreliable source, but even if he were that would not affect the notability of the story. Readers of any of the many books that discuss Stefanie Rabatsch may want to find out more about her. This article serves that purpose. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has twice removed well-sourced and relevant content from this article, which I have restored. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone Hitler loved is notable - though especially in this case because it helps historians favour a later date for the origins of Hitler's pathological antisemitism.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows the problem with keeping this article. We have no evidence that Hitler "loved" the the subject of this article. We have speculation recorded many years later. Mere speculation, and the speculation is by a Hitler acquaintance who would have had motivation to exaggerate the facts, even if memoirs could be relied upon for facts. I still support a redirect because keeping gives the appearance that this is a story supported by evidence. It is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August Kubizek was more than an acquaintance. Hitler and Kubizek were close friends. They even shared a flat together in Vienna. Yes, like all memoirs, it should be handled with care. But Kubizek seems to be a generally trustworthy if rather naïve source.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Many reputable historians have discussed the subject in depth. Kubizek is a primary source, a player in the drama, and the historians are secondary sources. Most accept Kubizek's account, but some downplay or dismiss it. The article tries to give a balanced view. The question here is not whether the story is true but whether it is notable. True or false, the story effortlessly meets the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The title is the natural search term for someone who reads about the subject in one of the many books that discuss her and wants to find out more. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned above, as while "Anyone he loved" is not quite a convincing sign in how we base articles, there's enough information to suggest significance in information here, but there's still not the convincing for an independent article; nominator has also concurred with redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "merge" outcome may be considered if an article is very short or duplicates information in another article. That does not apply here. The question is whether the subject has been addressed directly and in detail by a number of independent sources. The section on Scholarly reactions demonstrates that it has. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with a merge is that Franz Jetzinger's 3,444 character article would be overwhelmed by the 9,166 characters of text about Stefanie Rabatsch, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with Jetzinger. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks OK to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources with sufficient coverage to meet the notability guidelines. It is irrelevant what actions an article's subject takes or fails to take or how many iotas of difference we can detect. WP:INVALIDBIO does not apply because significant coverage is to be found on Rabatsch herself. No one is arguing that coverage about Hitler suffices. The redirect/merge target suggested would be inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the article contains the sentence: "Little is known about Stefanie's overall life" and it's cited. We don't know when she died, if she ever had children, or really any details of her life after 1913. We don't know where she was born, for sure. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people from Homer to Banksy have information missing from their bios. They are notable because a lot has been written about them. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zinaps AntiSpyware 2008

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

Non-notable, also WP:NOTGUIDE, most of this article is also a guide. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I don't see how most of the article is a guide, the removal section is what, two sentences? The rest of the article discusses what the product is, and what it looks like. I have no opinion on notability. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate Spam and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) f eminist 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Kampmann

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

References are insufficient at establishing notability under WP:CREATIVE (and WP:GNG). DrStrauss talk 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - going through google, I find local or semi-national mentions, [22] (includes mention of an Emmy for him as well), [23], plus a few obits [24]. Unfortunately, for individuals this old and dead, many of the news articles are often hidden behind paywalls and in archives, not readily accessible to google. I suspect if someone did some hefty research, sourcing this page and proving notability would be easy, so I am leaning towards suggesting the page be kept, at least until some deeper research can be performed. Yvarta (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he meets WP:CREATIVE #2 as the originator of the Action News concept. The two references in the article are also enough to meet GNG - it's true that they are local/semi-national, but WP:AUD only applies to organizations are far as I know. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 31 January 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bikers for Trump

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

This seems to have been a "nine days wonder" that got a lot of mentions in the press right before the inauguration and then turned out not to be such a big deal after all. Pictures circulating on the internet a few weeks ago of thousands of bikers rallying on their way to Washington were actually pictures of other events from years past, some not even in the United States. There was bragging of 20,000 of them showing up but it seems only a small fraction of that number actually showed. I am not seeing any reporting on them since the inauguration, their importance seems to have been grossly exaggerated in the week before the inauguration. What coverage there is is pretty trivial and does not show real notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beeblebrox's WP:SUSTAINED argument is a good one, but I think it's a bit premature. It's been less than 2 weeks since the inauguration. It will be interesting to see if Bikers for Trump sticks around and receives further coverage from the media down the road. I'd leave the notability tag on the article and revisit the issue in oh, I don't know, a year's time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a semi-official group of bikers who support Trump and does not appear to be a chartered organization or one which will endure for the long term. Serious questions also about notability. If not delete, then definitely merge with a broader articles about unofficial trump support groups. -O.R.^Comms 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and OberRanks Flow 234 (Nina) talk 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is doubtful there will be any additional media coverage and they're loosely organized. -Lance (talk) 2:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete – It seems as if the argument is that the article could be notable at one point, but definitely not now. Carbrera (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No, the argument is that the article clearly satisfies our general notability guideline, but that it's too early to tell whether that notability will be sustained. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I created the article because it seemed notable that a large group - of the sort of people famous for violent misbehavior themselves (bikers) - would offer to counter illegal violence at a political protest. If the group itself is not notable, then perhaps we could merge the information about the planned, er, "defensive wall" (of meat) into whatever article Wikipedia might have about violent clashes between Trump supporters and Trump opponents (such as Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Protests_and_demonstrations. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think they deliberately played up the charged word "bikers" which conjures up imagery of scary looking leather-clad bearded men on their choppers, ready to stomp some hippies. That's why they got all those press mentions before they actually showed up, but the reality turned out to be a lot of pudgy middle aged guys on touring bikes.. We actually had something similar happen right her in my town several years ago when it was chosen as the end point of a cross-country motorcycle rally. Everyone was talking about the "biker invasion" but when they started showing up, it was a lot of semi-retired suburban dudes who had the time and money to take a few weeks off and ride from Florida to Alaska, and now that they had done it they were very tired, for they did not smoke the meth all day and night after all. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 5 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place-based initiative

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

This is a dictionary entry for a term that "...seems to have entered common parlance"—in other words, it's poorly written and has very little substance. There is not enough content for this to warrant an article in the encyclopedia. giso6150 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references actually say "place-based approach." What we have are two words, "place-based" and "initiative" (or "approach") that together form a phrase that is not particularly common or unique among phrases. Jacknstock (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 31 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Hendrik Mullaard

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

A biography of a painter that lacks reliable sources and fails to establish notability. A google search provides no information to pass WP:Artist CBS527^Talk 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An equivalent article might have been expected in the nl Wikipedia, but there is none. Nor are my searches finding anything substantial on the subject, though there is an indication that he is mentioned in a supplement to Pieter Sheen's Lexicon Nederlandse beeldende kunstenaars. In the absence of any reliable 3rd party references, though, neither the WP:ARTIST nor broader WP:BASIC notability criteria appear to be met. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A google search for news articles did not reveal any independent articles. Zombalu (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:V. Mduvekot (talk) 16:51, 3 February 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) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Countess (shortbread)

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

no references found for this product. all found refs are likely mirrors of this, and are not reliable anyway Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I too found no sources whatsoever in multiple searches. Notability requires the existence of suitable sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did my darndest but can't find anything, even in Google Books. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 7 February 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) f eminist 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jian Man Shu

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

No indication of passing WP:ENTERTAINER. WP:CSD was declined because they received awards... None of these awards are notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL of these awards are notable. Timmyshin (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 31 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Knol

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Article about player who has not played in a Tier-1 international match. Sint Maarten is a FIFA non-member nation. Simione001 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Sint Maarten is a member of a FIFA confederation and subconfederation, CONCACAF and the CFU. Matches in 2017 Caribbean Cup qualification were against FIFA members in a FIFA-sanctioned tournament which served as qualification for another. If players from associations that are confederation members but not FIFA members are not considered notable, there will be multiple nations in multiple confederations who will likely never have a player that qualifies as notable. Doing so would blatantly disadvantage certain small footballing nations.--Gri3720 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that in order for an international match to meet the criteria laid out in the guideline it must be a tier 1 match (i.e. a match between the senior teams of two FIFA members). This is not the case here, nor does Knol meet any of the other criteria of WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played in any FIFA recognised international matches, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets new notability guidelines. Giant Snowman 20:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I am sympathetic to Gri3720, I personally feel that NFOOTY should be revisited and adjusted to include non-FIFA nations that participate in continental competitions. I am not sure why a player in one match of a given continental competition is deemed inherently notable as a result of playing in that competition, but a player in a different match in the same competition is not. I would like to see an addition to the notability guideline something along the lines of: In addition to players who have participated in Tier 1 international matches, all players who have appeared for the senior team of sovereign nations in a top-level continental competition in which all matches involving two FIFA members are deemed "Tier 1" are also considered notable by reason of having competed at an equal level to FIFA member nations. However, this would need consensus. I would recommend starting a thread a WT:FOOTY to see if there is similar feeling beyond the two of us. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Fenix down, for understanding and supporting my argument. I was planning on starting a discussion on WT:FOOTY so your encouragement convinced me. Please go to the section and voice your stances. I appreciate that everyone has strictly followed the notability guidelines as they are currently written. That does not however mean that they guidelines are perfect.

Keep - Vote changed to keep now NFOOTY has been clarified to include players such as this. Fenix down (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gri3720 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-Sint Maarten isn't a full fledged FIFA member per say, but they took part in the Caribbean Cup which is a FIFA recognize event and played competitive matches against FIFA member teams. It is evident to me that Knol played in a FIFE-aknowledged competitive match and thus qualifies WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Caribbean Cup is a FIFA recognized event. He therefore passes WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY Spiderone 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes clarified WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NFOOTY has been revised during this AfD, and would now clearly include the Caribbean Cup. Pinging @Sir Sputnik:, @GiantSnowman:, and @Fenix down: in case they want to change their votes in light of this. Smartyllama (talk) 14:14, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live In California

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as it does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no reliable sources. The article also fails WP:V as there are are no reliable sources to support the article's content. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kellymoat (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, possible hoax. I did my best to find a review of the EP in an effort to check notability and came up with so little that I'm not convinced it actually exists. No pictures, no release announcements, no album cover scans, not listed on Amazon or iTunes, nothing. Zip. I've gone ahead and removed it from the band's page, where it was sneakily inserted by an IP who I suspect (based on contrib history) to be the creator of this page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 7 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Shaikh

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

GNG not met. References (and results from WP:BEFORE search) are all a mix of PR announcements, passing mentions or related to the app he developed - not about the person. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Besomebody (his app) or delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 6 February 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAVtech

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

No independent reliable third-party sources. Local coverage and vanity coverage, but nothing to indicate corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing for actual independent notability and substance given the sources are all clear announcements, and nothing else better exists, and there's no automatic inherited notability from from anything or anyone as stated by our non-negotiable policies. For a company to only have mere announcements in the near 2 years of existence shows it's simply not established in our standards of significance. Clear advertising alone, SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement made by Robert McClenon, "No independent reliable third-party sources" is simply false. The page includes numerous third party and unaffiliated sources. It makes no sense why he is contesting the page's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven8200 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP requires independent sources, not press releases, not essays submitted by students, not social media posts. This article looks like the "about" section of a Facebook group or page. WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:COI. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:01, 8 February 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. (non-admin closure) f eminist 15:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Morgan Puett

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

Highly promotional BLP with no sources; old enough that it missed our filters; possible that it might survive if we had some actual sources and removed all the NPOV violations (peacock words, etc.). Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article is currently poorly written, however, a quick search on the "news" link above shows significant coverage by major publications: The New York Times (several feature articles), Architectural Digest, Creative Time Reports, ArtNews, New York Magazine, Huffington Post, ArtForum. A quick search on Google Books shows inclusion in numerous books by credible publishers, and several citations on Google Scholar. The artist is notable, it is the article that needs improvement. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear Keep. I stopped counting Google Book refs at 15. Here's a profile of her by Creative Time, which is an organization that is about as cutting-edge/snotty/highbrow/contemporary as you can get in the contemporary art world. Needs a major rewrite, but she is clearly notable.104.163.150.250 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added 18 or so refs, and discovered that she is in the collection of the Tate Museum in London, and just last year was a Guggenheim Fellow. The article did look bad when nominated! However it is time to withdraw the nomination I think.104.163.150.250 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article could be edited to flow better, but should be in the Keep category. I added some references, as well as details about her work on the RN patch, which apparently was a low-budget, easy solution that helped re-brand RNs in the workplace. It's been in at least one book and seems to make this artist more noteworthy. Westendgirl (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep & thanks to 104.163.150.250 --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:58, 6 February 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] ttp://electrical-engineering-portal.com/the-real-truth-behind-household-power-savers

[1]