Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 November	18 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TCExam[edit]

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

References are subject-curated content or non-notable mentions. A WP:BEFORE revealed only press releases. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have seen articles supported by self-serving self-referential citations like these before (I spend my most of my time trying to improve the murkier parts of Wiki). Possibly a speedy, per WP:G4. Narky Blert (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this passes WP:GNG and I can't find sources either. — Ammarpad (talk) 20:02, 18 November 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) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SSLearn[edit]

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

Article with a solitary source which is a mere listing. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:An article on a product by WP:SPA Sheldon4900. My searches on the product and the company Solid State Learning are not finding evidence of notability: fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 22 November 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 List of arteries of the human body. WP:NOTBURO. Duplicates in essence List of arteries of the human body, so redirecting it there forwith. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of arteries[edit]

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

I do not think this uncited, unreferenced article meets our notability criteria. Note also that we already have the List of arteries of the human body Tom (LT) (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unless we feel that it is too ambigous, in which case delete. But I don't think anyone is going to search "List of arteries" and be dissapointed when they can't find the List of arteries in a sperm whale or a frog article. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most complete list of arteries from Aa. to Aa. Redirect. Pburka (talk) 01:09, 18 November 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. G11, advertising DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman Institute[edit]

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

This supposed "not-for-profit" institute advertises its prices here. I note the two most recent edits were to revert a more egregious promotional attempt on the part of the product advertisers. This article is pseudoscience that has no place on here. Mark^Dask 23:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add This is their "Limited Liability Company" British affiliate - a shell company. Mark^Dask

Delete Fails GNG and Nprofit. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOUDER[edit]

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

Non notable fashion label, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7; completely unremarkable. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 18 November 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) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADANCO[edit]

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

The references are limited to publications by the creators of the software. While highly cited, these papers do not contribute to the program's notability since they only discuss it tangentially and some do not mention the program at all. It would appear that the techniques the authors developed are notable, but the commercial application they created is not per WP:NOTINHERITED. Since I found no substantial coverage of ADANCO in reliable secondary sources, I believe it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Rentier (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Dbsseven (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be that topic has not received significant coverage -nor any coverage for that matter- in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it is presumed to be not suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Thinker78 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MATAASH[edit]

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

Fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 21 November 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) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Borell[edit]

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

Clearly an interesting person, but does not appear to have sufficient notability either as an athlete or a businessperson. Australian Small Business Young Entrepreneur of the Year is not a notable award. The linking of competing in both motor sport and triathlon is just trivia. Boneymau (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought there might be some notability to be found in the athletics, but Formula Ford is an entry-level league, and his big achievement in triathlon is finishing 17th in one of 70-some divisions of a sub-Olympic event. This is an autobiographical article, and a rework after an earlier attempt was deleted for promotion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SPORTSPERSON which says 'A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition'. The triathlon age group world championships are the major amateur competition in Triathlon each year. The only higher level in triathlon would be professional competition. Andre Borell (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

- There is a specific guideline for WP:NTRIATHLON, and it is not met. Boneymau (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NTRIATHLON. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 24 November 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) 16:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North American Transport Services[edit]

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

While I (and others) have rejected multiple {{db}} attempts over the last few days, I think this company isn't notable, and the page should actually be deleted (just done right, instead of a speedy attempt). References are to a simple business index listing, the company website, something on PRNewswire that's pretty obviously based on a company press release, and an incorrect citation to Yahoo Finance that just goes to Yahoo's main page (and looks like it might have just been the same press release). I've done a WP:BEFORE search, and I didn't find anything better that would lead me to think this is notable and covered in multiple independent reliable sources, but that isn't really my strong suit so maybe others can find something? Right now, their only claim to fame is being one of the top 5000 fastest growing private companies in the US in 2014, 2015 (and 2016, though not stated in article); top 5000 of anything doesn't strike me a notable, much less with as restricted a scope as this list has. While it irks me that I was prompted to do this by an IP (possibly from the company itself) trying to get this deleted by not following our policies, I really do think this should be deleted. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a press release. Not seeing any national independent notability; Local and regional at best. Trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written by a single purpose editor (presumably from the company) it reads like an advertising brochure. Does not seem to meet WP:COMPANY as per nominator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it does not meet WP:COMPANY, in particular WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND. I did a (brief) search for secondary sources and didn't see anything indicating notability or straightforward hope of improvement. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:40, 23 November 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barrett (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and I can't find any references to support the article. (Including references to verify claim of co-founding Glendale, California). Unclear notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article. Trivial. I don't see where he is mentioned in the Glendale, California article, when he is a claimed co-founder of said city. If WP:RS confirmed, he could be briefly mentioned there; otherwise not. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOLDIER based on "served in." The article reads like he never left the state while serving (if he served).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created it but I have no memory of doing so. Deb (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soldier not relevant. I was about to say fails WP:V - but I was able to find some sources under T.M. Barrett - [1] [2] - not enough for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough content and no citations--FrankTursetta (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:09, 21 November 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 TRS-80 games. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airmail Pilot[edit]

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

Game does not pass WP:GNG. Non-notable video game. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient sources/coverage to merit a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to List of simulation games seems reasonable. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, List of TRS-80 games. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TRS-80 games. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 17 November 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion (T-Pain album)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON at least. My redirect to artist reverted bt article creator... TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's going to debut on the Billboard 200 and has been covered by reputable sources from rap blogs to Billboard.BlaccCrab (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to T-Pain but keep the categories, which are useful search tools. "It's going to debut on the Billboard 200" is a laughable reason for inclusion in Wiki. If it charts and so passes WP:NALBUMS, try again. Narky Blert (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing "laughable" is an editor naive enough to think that a project by someone who has coverage across the board from publications and sold millions of albums isn't notable. Go mess up a British artists album page. BlaccCrab (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure "laughable" is the right term. This looks to be a lazy job by virtually everyone involved. This is a major record label release by a platinum selling artist. Its completely ludicrous to think that it's not going to have the coverage to meet the bare minimum of the WP:GNG. Disappointing all around. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"naive enough to think that a project by someone who has coverage across the board from publications and sold millions of albums isn't notable"
"Its completely ludicrous to think that it's not going to have the coverage to meet the bare minimum of the WP:GNG"
Those arguments are unsupported WP:CRYSTAL.
That said, User:Sergecross73 has turned up several good looking sources. So, changing my vote to keep.

@BlaccCrab: "Go mess up a British artists album page." You mean like the one where I deliberately created a new album page by one of my favourite bands as a redirect to the band's page because I wasn't convinced that the album was notable? Narky Blert (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my comment you responded to was in regards to the lack of WP:BEFORE going on here, and the complete ease of finding the sources below pretty much confirms that suspicion. But regardless, we seem to largely be on the same page now. Thank you for reconsidering your !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tons of high level, reliable source coverage. Easily meets the WP:GNG.

It's not even a close call. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources mentioned above by Sergecross73, first reviews in from HipHopDX [3] and The Guardian [4]... this now passes WP:ALBUM even if it doesn't chart next week (which it will). Richard3120 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 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 Box (Guided by Voices album). MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Shit & the Golden Boys[edit]

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

Cannot see how this is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guided by Voices. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect as new dup of King Shit & The Golden Boys (note different capitalization of "The"). But I'm not going to do that at the moment until this AfD decides whether the topic itself merits any article. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- King Shit & The Golden Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have placed an AfD tag on that older article so here we can decide on the topic, since the original nom is about the topic itself. DMacks (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both 'King Shit' titles to Box (Guided by Voices album) where we already have this tracklisting, and the fact that this was later released separately can be mentioned there. The available sources ([5], [6], [7], [8]) would be better used there. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Box (Guided by Voices album) Atlantic306 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production club[edit]

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

The editor has chosen to reference spam this previously G5-deleted article with at some points nine references after each sentence. Unfortunately for them, the references are exclusively trivial mentions and a large majority are only very tangentially related to the the company, and have most likely been added en masse in an futile attempt to avoid being nominated for deletion.

To give some examples of the extreme REFOVERKILL going on here, an magazine interview with The Chainsmokers has been cited, along with the book "Minecraft, the game that changed everything" and a video of a Skrillex performance. It seems that the author has just hoped that if they cited loads and loads of websites, no one would actually check the references. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the horrific refbomb ought to be reason enough to delete this. I see no inherent notability and no individual reference that suggests that GNG is met. Having dozens of trivial references is not a reason to keep an article, merely to WP:TROUT its creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree there are many refs and a few trivial, however, the majority are mainstream and reliable, making the article notable and meeting GNG. Not sure why the editor didn’t include recent national press found on this company’s website (e.g. Billboard Magazine feature solely about this business). Perhaps coming later, but would help now. Vote against deletion, and suggest ref consolidation and ref update post-May 2017.Contributions/162.211.150.88 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC) — 162.211.150.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This SPA vote proves exactly what I said above about the concerted UPE sockfarm effort to get this subject on Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam with no indications of meeting WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balkrishna[edit]

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

This article was previously kept due to aggressive assertions of notability, but with a pretty strong view that it needed WP:TNT standard improvement. It has not been improved. It is still a puff piece. I am reviewing the list of papers, they are very often pay to play or even fake journals.

Comment - I completed the nomination for IP 82.21.88.44. ansh 666 20:33, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's interested too is that this article, under the full name Acharya Balkrishna was speedily deleted four times, twice by @Diannaa:, who then SALTED it. It was then recreated under only the last name, seemingly just to evade the ban on recreation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent two previous versions were copyvio from this web page. Hence the salting. The current version is quite different. Checking the Forbes citation shows him as of today ranked as 19th richest person in India, so I think notability is established and we should keep the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. Should this be moved to Acharya Balkrishna, then (after the AfD of course)? ansh 666 08:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment is it standard Wikipedia policy that a page that needs improvement should be deleted if it doesn't improve?Egaoblai (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fluff. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and 19th richest person in India is an insufficient claim of significance. It's very much a tribute page on an otherwise non notable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Wilson[edit]

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

This article has a *ton* of issues. References seem to only confirm the subject's place of employment, and many claims of what the subject has done ("In 1989 he helped coordinate solidarity efforts in Massachusetts during a successful three-month strike by 60,000 telephone workers against health care benefit cost-shifting," "As the founding director in the early 1990s, Wilson spearheaded efforts in Massachusetts to support legislation for universal health care and against international trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)," and "While working for SEIU, he helped revive the Jobs with Justice Health Care Action Committee – pushing for coordinated actions by union members to link their struggles against cost shifting with the broader movement for health care reform" to list a few) are unsupported. The subject of the article actively edited this page up until earlier this year. None of this is up to snuff with wikipedia's standards, and the only verifiable claims made by citations are "Rand Wilson has worked several jobs." The subject was deemed Notable after a 2010 AfD, though any sourcing provided toward notability seems to have been removed or now lead to dead links. I've removed uncited claims after attempting to find sources that indicate Mr. Wilson was especially notable during the efforts listed and finding none. This page is heavily flawed and unnecessary, therefore I am nominating it for deletion. Jjgaybrams (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. There is just not enough to establish significant notability here. The page also reads too much like an accomplishment list, or a resume. Has had various cleanup and verification issues, and has been tagged as such since 2009 and 2010 respectively. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. "What links here" shows only two references to Wilson on the site, both to uncited claims, one edited by a now inactive user named RandWilson. This looks like a simple case of self-promotion. Pbruce1110 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nessma Elaassar[edit]

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

No coverage fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and, looking at the edit history, possible autobiography ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 25 November 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) 16:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Shahani[edit]

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

None of the citations mentions her more than in passing. A search turned up this interview and the usual social websites. No in-depth independent coverage; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing major shows up on Google, and I couldn't even get most of the article's references to work. Not verifiably notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 21 November 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. Strong consensus to delete. There was a suggestion late in the AfD to redirect to List of air rage incidents. That didn't see any discussion, so while it seems reasonable, I'm not going to include it in the consensus. That doesn't preclude somebody from creating the redirect on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Airways Flight 962[edit]

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

I propose the deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Flight diversions happen every day. Wykx (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM. The page List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which is included under 'See also' is for crashes, explosions, disappearances and unusual or weird phenomena ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my keep !vote, the coverage meets the notability guidelines. Reconsider your !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. Not every flight diversion gets non-trivial news coverage in outlets from different countries. Clearly notable and sources indicate that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:RECENTISM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One instance of air-rage is not notable, has no lasting impact and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes I too can't see how this diverted flight meets WP:LASTING. A referenced mention should be added to main article Qatar Airways, which as of now doesn't even mention it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable diversion, happens every week. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - In today's Internet society, even the most simple of incidents gets a big blow-up of coverage - briefly. But there usually isn't any persistence to the coverage of events that in the past would have gone entirely unremarked. Now, if we had, or get, List of air rage incidents, that could be a notable subject (and a worthy redirect target), but individual full articles don't pass the bar. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wykx, Dom Kaos, Shawn in Montreal, Mjroots, and Lugnuts:@The Bushranger: Allright, this is the only !vote that seems to have been made with the editor actually engaging their brain rather than just mindlessly regurgitating policy shortcuts with some intervening verbiage that appears to make sense; I am truly dismayed at the decline in quality and intellectual rigor among AfD regulars since I was last part of that group a decade or so ago (Perhaps we should start requiring a certain amount of articles to be created or expanded for every deletion nomination made ... that skill seems to be at too much of a premium these days when it just gets more important to Wikipedia's continued health every year).

I will convert this into a redirect and be starting a list of air rage incidents (I would say "unruly aircraft passenger incidents" but there are more than you would think—DAL 2598, DAL 2422, that Air India flight where the pilots got into a fistfight before takeoff—where crew were the unruly ones) once the nominator has been so kind as to withdraw this; there are plenty of incidents I had been keeping a list of with the idea of creating articles on them but to be fair I do see the logic of not really needing information about the aircraft involved (And compiling such a list would actually be an excellent way to use my editing time and resources over the upcoming U.S. holiday week, NTITOI).

I do, however, reserve the right to argue that certain air-rage incidents, like United Airlines Flight 976, would be entitled to standalone articles per the criteria outlined above (And I would like to see at least some of the delete !voters target their apparently boundless energies in this area toward reviewing the many articles we have in the "aviation accidents and incidents" category where a plane diverted due to a mechanical problem, no one was hurt or killed, and the incident did not have any lasting importance. Why do those articles get kept, if they're even nominated? I really don't see the difference) Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in a lot of cases, they result in procedural or regulational changes as a result of the investigation and analysis. Those that don't should be deleted or redirected, but we get a lot of "it's all over the news, it must be notable" !votes in those. I agree there's (far) too much deletion going on, but on the flip side we need to spread awareness of WP:RECENTISM when it comes to breadth of coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Thanks for your reasoned and well-thought out contribution to this discussion. It's a pleasure interacting with people like you who understand how to be civil, how to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass ... you are a credit to the project. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you do indeed "have a brain", read WP:NPA. I stopped reading your vitriolic diatribe at that point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really? Stop hectoring people for adhering to policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC

I've issued him a user talk page warning. Not in the habit of doing so to regulars or admins but this is ridiculous. And if he persists in this line then a temp. block would be merited imo, sysop or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal and Lugnuts: I have had the chance to go out and eat and calm down and I apologize for my indelicate choice of words (I would strike them out, but as you have already chosen to delete them yourself, something that I really don't think is the wisest way to deal with situations like that (Better to ask the other person to do so by way of apology), I don't need to).

All the same, I commend your attention to WP:JUSTA and urge you to follow Bushranger's example in the future. It is not immediately obvious to a reader how the pages cited in the nomination are directly relevant: NOTNEWS is largely about what to add or not add to existing articles, and RECENTISM is a guideline that could be interpreted either way. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTA is an essay not a policy. It would be embarrassing to point that out to an admin. Oh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I did not represent it as a policy. It's a guideline, one of many on that page, to help editors have more productive XfDs. I don't see why it's so difficult to understand that there's a difference, demonstrated above by Bushranger vs. everyone else, between simply spitting out shortcuts and taking the time to demonstrate the relevance to the material at hand. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I represented my "vote" as a policy, you did not. You simpy said it's "clearly notable". And if I may be so bold to use your essay page, WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid reason to keep something. You mention something about standards being better a decade ago, above. However, there must have been a very low threshold at WP:RFA back in the day to allow someone like you through, based on my first and only impression of you in this AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: You're changing the subject. My !vote and the justifications for it are irrelevant since I have accepted the consensus of this AfD that a standalone article on this incident is not necessary, once Bushranger framed his !vote the way we all should and I agreed with his logic. I was pointing out that unlike everyone else who !voted, Bushranger recognized that it's a good idea to explain how policy relates to a specific article when you explain why it should be deleted. You can accept that without conceding the logic of your !vote (especially when, as I have said, I now agree with it).

And, like now-departed (supposedly) Shawn, you seem obsessed with my admin status when I never invoked it in any way to justify why the article ought to be kept, or my request to end the AfD now that I have agreed to turn the article into a redirect, much less even mentioned it (That would be wrong in so many ways). I can see why you might feel it's relevant, and I don't know what your experience might have been, but I assure you I have no intention of using any admin tools to resolve this if that's what you're expecting.

All I asked a couple of days ago was that, since I have agreed now that we do not need a standalone article on this incident and I have instead begun developing a list of air rage incidents, that we end this AfD so we can move ahead with that process instead of waiting around dumbly for a week for someone to close this. This is what we would have done in the old days. And what we can still do now. I do not want to do it myself because policy says you can't just remove an AfD tag on your own initiative; I suppose I could at this point but that would look bad and I think it's better done if consensus is behind turning it into a redirect. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stated succinctly, adequately and politely what my policy based concern is. I cannot believe you're both an admin and an oversighter but as such you should know exactly what the policy issues are when I raised this and linked to policy. Moreover, your command to dom Kaos to reconsider based on your preference was pretty rude. You've attempted to bully people here and if there's one thing I despise, Daniel Case, one thing: it's a bully. Oh and I didn't delete any of your comments. Please don't ping me anymore. I'm leaving Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm about to put the kettle on: who's up for a nice cup of tea and a sit-down? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments. I'm known for being an inclusionist, but this incident falls way short of the threshold for inclusion. Not often that I !vote delete, but in this instance it is warranted. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to agree with The Bushranger that creating a list of these events would be better. What I'm asking for is consensus to turn this into a redirect so I can create a list. Is everyone OK with this? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirection as this is a minor incident. There are hundreds of such incidences and many don't receive coverage beyond one or two articles. For an event to be notable, there should be some lasting impact or coverage, but this one seems to have none. I am also not sure if a "list of air rage" articles should be created. The term air-rage is not well defined and many instances may or may not be considered air rage. For example, recently there was an incident in Indigo where a passenger was restrained and manhandled by ground staff [9]. Should it be considered air rage? My other big concern is about the privacy of living people. Many of the people involved are not public figures but private people who were only involved in one single incident. Creating articles with their details may lead to increased scrutiny on them once again.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamLinker: Yes, I would consider that air rage, there was a significantly similar incident in a terminal back in the U.S. in 1999 where a man assaulted a Continental Airlines gate agent after the agent restrained him from running after his young son who had gone past a security checkpoint. It was called air rage at the time. Our air rage article says it occurs "typically during flight", meaning it is not restricted to in-flight behavior.

As for the BLP concerns, I think it's safe to say that only in cases where people were convicted of criminal offenses should we use their names, and that's what I've been doing in the list I started last night.

But this is beyond the scope of this discussion; it really should take place on the talk page for that list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Flight incidents generally are only notable if there is a significant incident where loss of life or craft. We don't need an article for more common incidents involving aborted flights. Ajf773 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: Right, that's why I took Bushranger's advice and started a list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above notnews , with no lasting effects, references or notability.--Petebutt (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Someone hit their spouse on an airplane? Just not a notable incident. As usual the press jumps all over this because it happened on an airplane. Would this have made the news if it happened in a home or a restaurant? I doubt it. I am not opposed to a list of these incidents, but this is far too minor to sustain a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence this story will have lasting notability. I would also be opposed to a "list of air rage incidents" page for two reasons: It would become a repository for non-notable incidents such as this, and it would likely be a morass of original research. How many of these incidents are analyzed and described as "air rage" by experts or academic sources? Shelbystripes (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: "It would become a repository for non-notable incidents such as this ..." The media coverage easily passes WP:GNG; you are probably saying you wish it didn't, and I think we all feel that way about some things that have gotten articles that have been kept at AfDs, but that's an argument better taken up at WT:N, I think.

Now, we all seem to have agreed, however, that the incident is not notable enough for a standalone article. That's why we have lists, for incidents of a recurrent phenomenon that is itself notable where we do not have standalone articles. " ... and it would likely be a morass of original research." If we set strict criteria as to inclusion, as I already have at the list (incidents that resulted in arrests or diversions of the flight), we will forestall any OR. "How many of these incidents are analyzed and described as "air rage" by experts or academic sources?" More than you were probably thinking when you asked the question, I imagine ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Sorry, but no, it cannot both "easily pass GNG" and be "not notable enough for a standalone article", since these are inherently contradictory things. WP:GNG also expressly warns that "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Extensive but brief media coverage without further analysis is not evidence of notability. See also WP:NOTNEWS. And absent reliable independent sources that analyze whether a particular incident constitutes "air rage", including this incident on a compiled list of non-notable incidents would be impermissible original research. Your examples of scholarly articles are useful and may justify the existence of a list... just not inclusion of this incident on it. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: Well, at least until someone does write about it in a roundup of these incidents ... I am finding as I look through these cases from the 1990s and (now) early 2000s that, indeed, not all of those from that period are long-term notable. So believe me it wouldn't be an indiscriminate list. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: BTW, if it's analysis that makes these incidents notable, note that there has indeed already been some about this one ... look at the "commentary" section. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the creation of the list, I am changing my !vote to Redirect to List of air rage incidents. (Assuming that the flight number isn't still in use? If it is, that could get thorny-) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: It still is, as far as I can tell. But so are a bunch of other flight numbers used for more lethal incidents (we have a list of the retired ones somewhere but I can't find it). Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mundane incident with no lasting significance. Flights are diverted regularly for disruptive passengers and medical issues, but we needn't have an encyclopedia article about each occurrence simply due to coverage in the media.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:49, 25 November 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) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Eves[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for this film producer as there is a lack of coverage directly about them in reliable sources and a likely conflict of interest as the creator has only edited connected articles Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So-called "producers" are a dime a dozen (any given feature film will often have over a dozen "producers" of various ranks/titles, some of whom only contributed cash), and this one's CV doesn't contain nearly enough feature films, or anything really notable. And as Atlantic306 stated, there is insufficient noteworthy coverage in reliable sources on this individual. SunChaser (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to concur with the view that producers are often no more than movers of cash. Some are major figures in film, but they have lots of coverage, and so we keep articles. Others are major behind the scenes players, and maybe if all was known would merit articles. However since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, we cannot create articles on people with large impacts in an industry where there are not sources to show such a large impact existed. Although to be fair, I think Eves is most like the first category (a mover of cash) or maybe someone with some influence on artistic decisions, but not at a level to make her presently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 19 November 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) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earl McClung[edit]

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

Earl McClung was an NCO in E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Neither his rank (staff sergeant) nor his awards qualify him for coverage under WP:SOLDIER; most of the information about him is anecdotal. After the war, McClung returned to civilian life and held a number of jobs, none of which earned him significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mention in a book about the every soldier types does not make the people so mentioned notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can see, McClung just happens to have been in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment, which happens to have been immortalised in a miniseries and book. He does not appear in the box at the bottom of the page showing the main characters, and apart from this he does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 20 November 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. Disagreement about what "significant role" means, but overall, there's reasonable consensus that this wasn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kapila[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Mostly one-off appearances or very minor roles. The "recurring role" in Big Bang Theory is actually 3 appearances. The only thing close is the Bloomers role. It's actually a YouTube series, not television. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was only three episodes, but it was a pretty substantial role. The Life! Camera Action... film role also seems notable, especially considering her award nomination. Lapislazulia (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the award, but the International Filmmaker Festival of World Cinema doesn't appear to be all that notable, so I didn't give it much weight. Remember, the standard for NACTOR is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" I'm not sure a 3 episode appearance and a nomination for a non-notable award meets that criteria. Again, she may be notable someday, I just don't think that day is today. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the film festival circuit, but the World Music & Independent Film Festival is at least notable enough to have a page (again, not too familiar with film festivals so perhaps this page is also unwarranted). Lapislazulia (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a little more notable than "The Social Uprising Resistance and Grass Root Encouragement International Film Festival" Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Substantial" roles are generally starring roles or a recurring role that continues for a long period so no, the actress does not have recurring roles. As for the award, she was only nominated. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial body of notable work at this point. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has had significant roles in a number of television series and movies. She has also been nominated for multiple awards. In 2014, Kapila received an Indie Series Award normination for best supporting actress in a comedy for Bloomers.^[1]^[2]tomburbine (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 3 episode appearance in a show and I'm not convinced that the Indie Soap Awards are actually notable.... that may be a good AfD candidate Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. As already indicated by Niteshift36 above, NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and the subject does not meet that requirement. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "5th Annual Indie Series Awards Nominees" Archived 2015-08-07 at WebCite. Indie Series Awards. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
^ Indie Series Awards, Awards history. Retrieved 2015-02-11.

Delete a 3-episode apparance in a multi-season show is just not a sign of notability, and nothing else here is either. Maybe if we had reliable source coverage of her role in that show I would consider otherwise, but we don't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the requirements necessary for the article to meet notability standards. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:32, 25 November 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) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ready10[edit]

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

Claims of notability, yes. Substantial and credible enough? I think not. TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources in article are to insider journals promoting stories about similar companies. No other WP:RS (third party) found on a Google News or other searches. This PR company might well become notable in the future - but is WP:TOOSOON right now, despite its own video stating it has attained 1,925 pieces of earned media in its lifetime. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the companies who employ them to do their PR. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert. Szzuk (talk) 20:17, 23 November 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) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas–Rice football rivalry[edit]

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

Seems like a very unremarkable rivalry. Sources parochial in the extreme. TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Conference USA rivalries listed in the template at the bottom should also probably be nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable series. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 18 November 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) 16:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 League of Legends World Championship rosters[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This is linked to from 2017 League of Legends World Championship, but if it is unnecessary detail that would clutter up that article it certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If readers want to know this, they should go to the LoL website. Sergecross73 msg me 12:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Ajf773 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to giggle at how we have literal thousands of pages dedicated to specific sports teams's seasons and yet this is the one that gets targeted. (This is a clear delete.) --Izno (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'd be nice if we could do a big cleanup, and some sort of communication, to better express that this isn't the sort of thing that an encyclopedia documents, so people don't waste their time on writing these things up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 17 November 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. Consensus is that the topic does not appear to meet NPROF Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadreza Yalameha[edit]

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

Biography of a "top researcher" written by a WP:SPA. Claim to notability rests on editorship of journals, but they journals are listed as predatory open access. Fails WP:PROF, also fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sourcing. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he is the Top researcher of humanities in Iran, President of a university in Iran and in some authentic literature journals editorial board.A.R.Rostamzade (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not WP:SPA, every one can see my activity in Farsi Wikipedia 1 so I am not fake.

As I said before Ahmadreza Yalameha is a President of a university in Iran and according to WP:GNG,Specific criteria notes, Paragraph six The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society is notable person.A.R.Rostamzade (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none of the references states that he holds the post of university president: neither does the CV linked from the fifth reference. Unless he is verifiably notable, this is an invalid argument in this context ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability appears to rest on membership on editorial board (not editor in chief) of journals from a group appearing to be impersonating the publishers of Science and described by some as predatory [10] [11] [12]. That's a fail of the "major, well-established" components of WP:PROF#C8, and no other notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an editor in chief, so does not pass on those grounds. No other grounds to show he is a notable academic either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add the source that show he is the president of university.A.R.Rostamzade (talk) 22:19, 21 November 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) 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Women in Media[edit]

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

Lack of any real coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Cjhard (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I found plenty of reliable, 3rd party sources, added them to the article and removed the puffery. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current state of the article, as expanded by Megalibrarygirl, the organization appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, Megalibrarygirl has done it again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 20 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Ishie Etim[edit]

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

A promotional puff-piece for the subject in which all of the source material has been over-sold.

africanentrepreneurshipaward.com listed as a mentor, not as a winner
olamildent.com listed as a discussion panel member
ladybrillenigeria.com lists participants, not winners, and is clearly a self-written biography submitted to the organisers - "professional excellence I had exhibited "
upenn.edu is just a conference participants list
thenigerianvoice.com lists him as one of 100 awardees of The Future Awards Africa, not as a Guardian of the Future as claimed

With every claim over-sold it's hard to see any credible claim to notability. Previous versions of the article have been created at APOSTLE EMMANUEL ETIM, Emmanuel Etim, Draft:Emmanuel Etim. Cabayi (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for this. I created this page and I'm currently editing it, so all your comments are noted. Please hold off on summarily deleting the page while I find more verifiable third-party sources to support relevant claims (and remove those ones not supported by valid and non-hagiographical sources). Igwatala (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems a bit swift and knee-jerk to have an AfD a day after the page was started. Maybe WP:DRAFTIFY? JMWt (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, as noted in the nomination, Draft:Emmanuel Etim already exists. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, I missed that. I still think it is possible that a combination of the draft(s) and this page could be notable. I think the author should be given a chance to get it up to scratch. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I know the subject is what we're talking about rather than the page. I'm just not sure that simply deleting this at an AfD is really giving the OP a fair crack of the whip. JMWt (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, the AfD runs for a week and the OP is free to improve the article and request !voters to reassess their opinion (as I've informed them on my talk page). Is that not "a fair crack of the whip"? Cabayi (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I've now !voted delete - I think the OP should be improving the draft as per my comments below JMWt (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JMWt just said what I wanted to say. I think passing admin may help if it warrants. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article is a pure hoax and only serves to promote. It fails Reliable Source and General Notability Guidelines. Zazzysa (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Procedural delete since similar draft exists. On looking at the draft it is even more expansive than this article. Although there's significant promotional concern about even the draft content. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comment ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have said, there is a fairly substantial draft which could be improved and submitted for review. As I noted above, I missed this originally. JMWt (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Promotional article for the subject, whom is non notable, as he fails WP:GNG lacks WP:SIGCOV and does not satisfy WP:GOLDENRULE.Celestina007 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will resume work on the draft page. Thank you for all your input.Igwatala (talk) 21:14, 24 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Club (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Part fan cruft and part content forking, this article has no reason for existing. Anything worth keeping is already covered in AJ Styles and Gallows and Anderson. Feedback 08:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, both Bullet Club and Gallows and Anderson exist, and are referenced in the text. I don't agree that there was much things of note with the threesome, as opposed to the pairing. Putting Style's WWE accomplishments on the list when he's not even on the same TV program is a bit silly as well. Some good stuff should be inserted into the Gallows and Anderson page. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought we already deleted this but it must've been wishful thinking. I also could've confused them with The Bloodline (professional wrestling), their only real rival. They had their article deleted last year. Both are examples of articles which were rushed to be created WP:TOOSOON and split up before they became notable.LM2000 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's possible you were thinking of a similar article for The Bludgeon Brothers that was deleted for similar reasons Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Entirely possible.LM2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nickag989^talk 12:41, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Mihály[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alright ... I'm aware that nothing I'm about to mention quite meets any one criterion of NHOCKEY; however. He's played over 400 North American professional games, split between the AHL and the ECHL. He's had several stints playing for his national team. He's played over 500 games for top-flight Euroleagues. I'd like to hear what research the nom performed in European sources before asserting that someone who's logged nearly a thousand pro games (and we're not talking UHL/LNAH/Eurominors) can't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 11:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability guidelines for hockey are way below a reasonable level for notability, if he does not meet them he is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect. Even if he does not meet the specific notability criteria for hockey players, he would still be notable if he meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NHOCKEY and the burden of proof is on those who claim notability via WP:GNG. My own search didn't turn up evidence that WP:GNG is met. I also checked his Italian WP page and it didn't show significant independent coverage. It lists some hockey databases and a blog post about him going to play in a Hungarian league. His appearances at IIHF events with his national team are all at lower levels and that's been stated in many AfD discussions as being insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a difficult one. There is this newspaper article from when he played in Reading that is quite an extensive profile of him (it is the April 16 issue on page D1 if the link doesn't work correctly). It is definitely in-depth coverage, but perhaps it is too local? I have found a few more sources including this interview where it appears he tried out with and was signed (but never played with) Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg (another source here). There is this recent source where a dead rat with his name and number was placed in the dressing room by an opposing team. This source, though local and mostly about another player, does seem to indicate that he is well known in the Romanian Hockey world (the Romanian player being interviewed is at one point called "the next Mihaly"). A short interview from when he was playing with the Hungarian National team. There also appears to be a few articles about him in the archives of the Wilkes-Barre Time Leader ("Never Too Late to Go Home" from Dec. 10 seems to be about him), but I can't access them. Another short profile about his aborted signing with Las Vegas Wranglers. A 2004 article on him on hotnews.ro, which I can't tell the reliability of. Finally, there are a number of hits in the archives of the Binghamton newspaper, some of which look to be a bit in depth, but are behind a pay wall. As he was the first Romanian to play pro hockey in North America, and from my searches, I think that there is likely a few more offline sources, especially in local and Romanian newspapers in the early 2000s that have yet to be digitized. Ravendrop 23:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that he played for a dozen minor league teams, and tried out for even more, it's not surprising that a number of local papers have some coverage of him. However, all of it is the kind of sports coverage that any local paper would give to a player on the local minor league team. I don't think that's the kind of coverage that shows he's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (or we'd have tens of thousands of articles on minor league athletes). Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional references are added to reflect WP:GNG. Currently, there is one stats reference only. Hmlarson (talk) 21:19, 24 November 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. Interviews are primary sources and therefore cannot count towards notability so that just leaves assertions for notability, which isn’t enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closed as No Consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 4 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rika Tachibana[edit]

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

Still WP:TOOSOON. No starring roles in major anime shows, only supporting characters. JA wikipedia only shows a credits list. Recommend deletion, unless someone really wants to work on it as a draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as does have a substantial number of supporting roles for a possible pass of criteria 3 of WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What roles are considered unique, prolific or innovative? VADB only shows 14 roles [13]. That's not prolific at all, not like the ones who have had 500 roles. Also, there's no coverage on the actress in secondary sources, only cast announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reiko Arisugawa from Shomin Sample is a main character in the series. I would look for things like interviews or such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two interviews: [14], [15].. will look more later. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON. Interviews are not suitable for establishing notability, as they are not independent of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant roles. The supporting roles come no where near meeting criteria 3.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found this news report from Crunchyroll; it's not much, but it is something, I guess. The interviews above could be argued to count as significant coverage, as generally these kinds of interviews tend to be more about the person than specific roles. It also appears that she will be making a solo music debut next year; said debut has been covered by some Japanese sites such as this, this, and this, among other reports. There has also been some coverage about her acting career, such as hits like these: [16], this interview about a music unit she's a part of, and the opening of her official fanclub. Considering she's not exactly a popular VA, the coverage out there isn't that much, but it does appear to be enough to establish notability, if only by a rather slim margin. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has she charted on Billboard or Oricon? Sometimes actors get a profile there although they don't have any released singles or albums that charted. If the news articles help, it can be written into the article. I just think it should be in draft until she lands those lead roles that would clearly place her in WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question. She doesn't, at least not for solo singles or albums. [17] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough notable roles to warrant inclusion. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What roles would those be, besides the one in Shomin Sample? AngusWOOF (bark * sniff) 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems she had an ANN-bolded role in Scorching Ping Pong Girls, though as I have not watched the series I can't tell if it's a main or a supporting role. Though from I could see online, it seems said role did get some coverage in Japanese sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like supporting but possibly billed in the website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would draft make sense? She'll probably keep getting supporting but billed roles, but without any development or writing into the article, this isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covers criterias of WP:NACTOR..BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is she meeting that? One main role isn't going to cut it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note: I'm new here, I don't understand any Wikipedia policies YET at all, and maybe don't have the time to learn all of those policies, so please tell and teach me the right way if I'm wrong.

To be honest, as one of her fans and her twitter follower, I don't understand the point of deleting her page here; but I know for sure that she is an active seiyuu and got some songs and albums. All of her albums are listed as her The Idolmaster Cinderella Girls's character, Sae Kobayakawa.

Her role on the anime is not big as her character is only one of 183 idols of the series, but she contributes more on idol industry through The Idolmaster Cinderella Girls franchise and the mobile game version [The Idolmaster Cinderella Girls: Starlight Stage].

Here is one of her MASTER album (solo) that's listed on Columbia Music Entertainment site and the other albums that also includes her. Here are also her Discography list as Sae Kobayakawa.

She has been featured and interviewed on some Live Broadcasts by Animedia official program but you must watch it LIVE so here's one of the recorded Live Broadcast that I've found somewhere on Chinese site.

She even have a fan club and here's the article about her first fan meeting [18].

Plus here is a sneakpeek of her stage performance (caution: this one is an illegal upload) on THE IDOLM@STER CINDERELLA GIRLS 2nd LIVE PARTY M@GIC!! on 30 November 2014. --JohnLambert (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like her character CD has charted and reached #11 on Oricon. [19] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree, WP:TOOSOON. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:35, 25 November 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spill beans) 21:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. I was only able to locate this biography in a secondary source. This looks like a commercial sales site, and this is a primary source interview. This biography does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep. The 405 is not a commercial sales site, it's a well regarded UK music site. I also found this, this, and this. Some of the coverage looks like it is based on press releases, but he seems to have made a significant enough impact. --Michig (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this article should be deleted as from the sources it seems to have had adequate notability Jamesrichards12345 (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017
Delete does not meet the notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to assert notability. fish&karate 10:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Huge and influential dubstep artist, 100 million+ views across soundcloud and youtube. Just because he doesn't make pop doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a wiki page. user:Dargenor 03:38, 15 November 2017 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dargenor: unfortunately, SoundCloud and YouTube hits don't qualify an artiste for inclusion. Per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, can he be demonstrably said to be notable under guideline 7 ("one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style")? I'm asking in good faith, as someone who doesn't pretend to know the first thing about dubstep ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. It seems like the radio appearances would establish notability, if they can be sourced. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wickaman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. One charted song on a non-notable label barely meets WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to J Majik. As a duo they've had 4 charting singles in the UK ([20]). --Michig (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator themselves notes it "barely meets MUSICBIO". We don't grade notability on a curve. If something meets it, it meets it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do grade notability of musicians on a curve. WP:MUSICBIO specifically says "may be notable if..." Magnolia677 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 17 November 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 Lenny Lipton#Stereography. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StereoGraphics[edit]

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

Lacks notoriety. Google search produces no info from reliable sources concerning Lipton's contribution to 3D/stereoscopy. Violates guidelines barring promotion. Tapered (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - StereoGraphics and CrystalEyes are WP:N. Added WP:RS, reduced Lipton's mentions. Article could use more content, categories and infobox. StrayBolt (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reference 1 is small step to WP:N, but nowhere near sufficient Lots of non-notable enterprises have Bloomberg profiles. Reference 2 is substantial, and a secondary source, but the coverage is brief. Reference 3 is an interview with Lipton—hence a primary source, and can't confer notoriety, though it can be used for bits of information and interest in an article. Reference 4 may be too much of a promotional website/journal for reliability, and the mentions of RealD are trivial, anyway. Reference 5 is promotional, ergo not a reliable source. Not enough to confer WP:N Tapered (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this could be redirected to the article on Lipton. Tapered (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lenny Lipton as the notable founder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lenny_Lipton#Stereography; no need to maintain a separate article on an entity that's not independently notable of the creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Summation of the situation as of now. I believe I shredded the "Keep" entry in matter of fact fashion. I suggested a willingness to redirect, and the only 2 subsequent comments have been for "redirect." Tapered (talk) 06:48, 25 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallene Sciences[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. The sources are not independent enough for notability. The draft has been declined 3 times, but the creator moved it to mainspace anyway. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 04:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself isn't making much of a claim to notability -- it asserts little more than that it exists and that it sells certain products. I had trouble accessing the newsmada piece, but the others are press-release types of articles (and note that reference 6, from thehealthpilot, is merely a reprint of reference 4). In all, we have been given no reason to believe that this new company has achieved encyclopedic notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: sources fail WP:RS, the only real edits are by a SPA and the page is little more than a business listing ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:55, 17 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel garner[edit]

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

No independent references, and so does not establish biographical notability. Google search does not turn up in-depth independent coverage that could establish notability.

Not in a formal neutral encyclopedic style. That could be fixed if notability could be established. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. It is being created in honor of Lionel Garner with permission from Garner and his family by David Kokakis and myself (his executive assistant). David has been an avid collector of Garner's work for over a decade and was the first person to interview Garner for public information. As you will see if you follow the link included in the page, David has created a website for Garner. In order to establish a legacy for the painter we are trying to create an online presence for him. The interview has been transcribed in both French and English on the website, the biography was written by David Kokakis and reviewed by Garner and his family, and we are working on creating a documentary with the raw footage that was taken by David during the interview and trip to Paris. This page is a necessary step in contributing to a legacy for Garner that the public can access.User:Dkokakis (talk)
Comment - See Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The above doesn't address Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At most, the primary-sourced text in this biography describes someone going about their business. Wikipedia is not a place "to create an online presence" for a subject. I see no evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very few Google hits and none of them newsworthy. As others have noted, this is an example of Wikipedia:NOTOBITUARY @Dkokakis: as you've disclosed the fact that you are personally connected to the subject of the article, it might benefit you to have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on avoiding conflicts of interest. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Works sold for $500-2200[21] do not indicate a major painter. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but price is not a reliable guide to notability. Consider a preparatory skecht by a notable artist sold for $5000 by their gallery, or an artist who never sold any work but appears in twenty books, or a conceptual artist whose work is ephemeral and non-saleable. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent reliable sources during a web and Google books search. There does seem to be a small commercial market for his work, but that does not make him notable if there is little critical notice.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:05, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data Feminism[edit]

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

The article explicitly states Not much information is available on data feminism, as this is a new field of study, and even the term "data feminism" has only just begun to be used., and a Google Scholar search turns up no results (note - there are quite a few false positives because "feminism" is a LOC category). Thus, this term is a neologism, and this article borders on a synthesis essay, as has been a common problem with Wiki Ed projects. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks like "too soon" and synthesis. "Femoinformatics"? My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is combination of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR — Ammarpad (talk) 18:28, 24 November 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 nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ylike[edit]

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

Delete No proof of existence, article consists of a single sentence; has not been edited in more than 8 years. The Tortfeasor (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: village may be non-fictional, according to this map: https://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-2000136&fid=1774&c=finland. Calling this an "article", however, may be a stretch. The Tortfeasor (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WP:GEOLAND. Ten seconds to satisfy WP:V. "Consists of a single sentence" and {not been edited in more than 8 years" are not policy-based reasons to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, thanks. It only took us 8 years to get a reference for this article. I will add this. The Tortfeasor (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I'm willing to withdraw now that we have a reference and I'm satisfied this is not a fictional village, if my desire to withdraw matters. The Tortfeasor (talk) 05:40, 17 November 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. WP:G3 -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frantzen (surname)[edit]

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

Whatever (little) is known on specific Viking Age families in Scandinavia is easily referenced to reliable secondary sources. None are present in this rather unconvincing hoax. Hegvald (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It's a real surname (e.g. Björn Frantzén), but everything written here is clearly a 'joke'. Lapislazulia (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good grief, just delete it ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a biography (almost certainly a hoax, or at least one of someone whose historicity is doubtful) masquerading as a surname article to avoid having to face some citation issues. One book I am in the process of reading is a work on atlantic crossings before Columbus. The author is a strong supporter of the theory St. Brendan or his underlings made the American mainland. He also seems to suggest the same for Phonecians from Carthage in the years before Christ. He is a supporter of the historicity of the supposed Viking runestones in Oklahoma. He seems more skeptical on claims of semitic writings having been found in Pennsylvania. However he makes no mention of any tradition related to Franz coming to North America. Even if there was, linking such to modern usage of the name Frantzen ignores the history of surnames in Scandanavia, and how they were true patronimics until much more recent times than in Iberia, France or Britain, and in the case of Iceland may still be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax, which it is. The name Frans is not known to have been used in Scandinavia earlier than the mid-15th century, and the spelling Franz is more recent than that. So there was no Franz the viking to begin with, and all the rest is utter nonsense as well - not remotely believable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald S. Weinstein[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. fails Wikipedia's WP:BLP guidelines. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that you won't find a ton of sources on a Google search, and this article needs a lot of work on its tone, but I think that he meets WP:PROF and probably GNG. For all of the limitations of citation counts in clinical medicine, Weinstein has several publications cited more than 100 times. He's been president of USCAP and the ATA (may not get him over the bar by itself but I think it suggests notability). He held a named professorship at Rush, which is no mom-and-pop medical school. There's also a full-length 2005 article about him in the Arizona Daily Star; we could probably use it to flesh out some of the article with neutral information about his early life and career. I am having internet signal problems and I'm restricted to working from my mobile device right now, so I suspect that there is more to be found. I can add this stuff if my connection situation improves. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the claims of importance sounds OK to me. Sourcing here is poor with nothing independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but the newspaper article that my vote hinges on is behind a pay wall. If that article about a "visionary" is about him then I'd change my vote to keep. If it does not, I would change to delete. Ifnord (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. And there's sufficient coverage of him with regard to telehealth promotion. Natureium (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn, no other delete votes SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frazan Kotwal[edit]

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

It's hard to judge if the sources are reliable enough to support this article. There are no incoming links to help evaluate notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per Lourdes' analysis of two reliable sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarek, how are you doing? News reports in publications like this one from Daily News and Analysis, or this one from The Indian Express Group seem quite reliable. I would have actually loved to see a New York Times or Huffington Post article covering this unique personality (a Parsi priest who's an opera singer); perhaps that would happen eventually. Right now the subject seems to qualify on WP:BASIC and may be (Keep) Kept. What do you think? Warmly, Lourdes 11:57, 17 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Second relist was unnecessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Terror Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable DVD box set --wooden superman 15:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - no indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:44, 17 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dutch Music[edit]

(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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions about this record label; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Chuckie (DJ). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:44, 17 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surrism-Phonoethics[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Jaan Patterson. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-innovate (UK)[edit]

(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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN music label. Szzuk (talk) 20:19, 23 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFrame[edit]

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

Berdeline promotional article; I see nothing to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qarie Marshall[edit]

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

Little coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a notable actor. I have doubts his father is notable either, and would support any nomination for the deletion of the article on his father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to have some coverage as an actor and voice artist including narrating "more than 30 series for the Discovery, Learning, and Travel channels, and for PBS and BBC. "; some links for instance [22] [23] [24] [25] Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need WP:RS not vanity coverage. Störm (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saadat Awan[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Much is written by the subject himself. See User talk:Saadatawan. Störm (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Key member of two notable bands, satisfying WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wajd[edit]

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

Dubious notability with little coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 08:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MTTrain^Discuss 08:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 19 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. There was no need for a 2nd relist here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Logix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. First AfD closed as "delete" in 2012. Separately, the article on the company's CEO has recently been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Bawab. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per OP above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:43, 17 November 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. Third relist completely unnecessary. ansh 666 03:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean R. Burgess[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources showing notability. He was a key leader of a major, international organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Both of the sources in the article ([26], [27]) are WP:PRIMARY sources published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, these do not serve to establish notability. Searches in GNews are only providing primary sources published by Deseret News, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more information). Searches in GBooks are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill LDS church functionary. One of multiple "Presidents" of the church's Missionary Training Center. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CLERGY isn't met, but probably isn't relevant here. No claim of meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:42, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Sattar al-Badri[edit]

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

BLP is sourced to a personal blog. A search of Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any mentions. Chetsford (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

"Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." What you describe as a "personal blog" is in fact written by a prominent academic. Unfortunately that is the only source available in the English language, lack of sources does not prove lack of notability. One source is sufficient to establish notability.Kuching7102 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are non-English sources, they should be added. An article cannot logically pass GNG if the subject of the article can be shown to exist nowhere except on one blog, whether it's written by a qualified person or not. Nor is your personal testament that sources exist somewhere a substitute for the actual presentation of those sources. Chetsford (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why one source, which we have established is written by a noted academic, should not suffice. There is no requirement to have more than one source, though it is certainly preferable. As it happens I cannot find any good sources in Arabic, the best mention of him there is on a open forum. Maybe you'd like to look for others.Kuching7102 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source mentioning the subject in relation to his contribution to the building of a mosque in Diyala, Iraq. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=http://www.masajediraq.com/index.php%3Ftype%3Dprevmas%26idm%3D1295&prev=search. With us now having two sources I think we have established a sufficient level of notability.Kuching7102 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The masajediraq.com website is not a WP:RS. The standards for WP:BLP are high and a person for whom the most basic biographical data can only be found on a blog with no editorial gatekeeping (and nowhere else) should be free of being subjected to a WP article about him/her. Proving the mere existence of a person or thing does not establish that person or thing's suitability for a WP article. Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth should a website about mosques in Iraq, established since 2008, not be a reliable source? Because the website is shoddily formatted and in Arabic? That doesn't take away from its content. The site states: "The mosque Foundation (waqaf) was established in 1979 by the efforts of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Al-Badri Al-Husseini and funded by Al-Haj Alawi Al-Badri Al-Husseini, he donated the piece of land and what is needed for survival, he donated a large sum along with numerous benefactors according to their capacity and he opened the mosque in the same year."

That is a non-trivial paragraph clearly establishing the subject as a notable person in his field. Kuching7102 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find out more about identifying reliable sources here: WP:RELIABLE. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notion of notavbility is that a person is widely studied. The idea behind reliable sources is not that being written by an academic makes something reliable, but that the multi-step process of vetting and caring involved in academic publishing shows notability. Blogs are a dime a dozen, and mention on one blog somewhere never shows someone as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually no valid sources, most Google queries redirect back to this article. Does not meet WP:BIO. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:03, 21 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pluta[edit]

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

A big-headed YouTuber who isn't known for much more than that - claims to be some sort of celebrity, but I don't see how this meets notability guidelines. Should have been deleted the first time around. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many credible sources of information that reference this individual. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-rail-transport-minister-stirling-hinchliffe-warned-about-driver-shortage-in-early-march/news-story/f2d36dfdfc14daf778aee62d007ecf30

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-rail-fiasco-who-is-brisbanes-rail-advocate-paul-pluta-20161229-gtjhrm.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiromi kirishima (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is exceedingly well known in the Watch community and also within Australia. Love him or hate him...he is definitely a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.93.130 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has had millions of views on YouTube, has been a guest commentator on television networks, and is well known in the watch community. His page should not be deleted. There are much lesser known people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.176.18 (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a bunch of credible sources to prove these claims. Additionally (and less to the point), to other editors viewing this, I think that the above comments are cases of block evasion, as the article's creator (who is arguing for it to be kept) has since been blocked. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportReading through these comments and looking at the page, I'm in support of deletion as it is not meeting notability criterion. Regarding the comments in support, these are from random IP addresses and possibly could be the person in question from different devices. In addition, the contributions related to this person on other pages (e.g. Queensland Rail which has had a minor edit war in recent days) contravene many WP policies and may also be from this person.James.au (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I digress to the deletion of Paul Pluta's wikipedia page.His page does not qualify to be deleted since it never fulfilled reasons for deletion.Additionally, he's famous and his fanbase spans across the world.From the U.S all the way to Australia.

Tagging Acroterion – the above comments (minus James.au's support comment) have all been made by the same person. All have only one edit to their name (other than the user that you already blocked) – clear block evasion as I mentioned before. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is an interview or two and mentions. Fails WP:NBIO. 40000 subscribers doesn't bode well for notability either. Galobtter (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 01:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom and Galobtter. I was going to say that he made it as a sort of "15 minutes of fame" case here in Brisbane himself (where I'm from, and where the article talks about his predictions about the public transport issues this time last year), but he didn't even do that. Simply non-notable, and none of the sources available elevate him beyond that position. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE criterion #1 ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers"). For example:

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above Keep vote I disagree that these sites establish notability through WP:Creative. I cannot justify how any of the 4 creativity criterion are met.James.au (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for creative artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unique name makes searching easy, but he fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 26 November 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pardal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. His roles aren't that significant at this stage. Maybe later. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secure input and output handling[edit]

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

Unreferenced "How-to" essay tagged since 2013 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, that's an essay/how-to guide. A redirect to data validation is worth considering; I would weakly oppose it, because it is not exactly the same topic, but avoiding broken external links is a worthy goal. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A correct redirect would be a generic one to Computer security, since the discussed title is as generic as it may be; after all, "input and output" is 66%, while 33% is "process the data" :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that looks like an overbroad redirect (not sure "overbroad" is the correct term here?). We would not redirect Unnotablia Subsubsubspecia to Animal. If anything, that is an argument against redirecting at all. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced article with essay/how-to and WP:OR issues, particularly the claims that some methods are better than others without supporting refs. A search turned up incidental mentions including this book, but no significant coverage of this term.Dialectric (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Dbsseven (talk) 22:31, 22 November 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] "5th Annual Indie Series Awards Nominees" Archived 2015-08-07 at WebCite. Indie Series Awards. Retrieved 2015-02-12.

[2] Indie Series Awards, Awards history. Retrieved 2015-02-11.

[1]

[2]