Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 February	11 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahf Paroo

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

Article started by an apparent SPA with 2 basic sentences and nothing substantiating independent notability and substance, the listed sources are still only 1-time mentions, with none of them being substantial in-depth coverage and a simple enough search mirrored it; as with these subjects, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I even recognized his name, distinctive as it is, from one of the movies he's been in, but there's no applicable coverage or distinction to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Largoplazo (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way I read N to be, he isn't really notable, and the article is quite poor. He'll probably become notable in the future, but until then…L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evita Robinson

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

Sources are insufficient to establish WP:GNG and are not RS (includes her bio on her PR firms's website, etc.). DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear Facebook listing, not an article in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Google searches produces nothing to show notability. CBS527^Talk 01:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs a LOT of work, but clearly had sources -- Someone didn't do their WP:BEFORE, she's got a fair bit of coverage in major magazines and web sites. Oxygen is an independent source and fairly major. I also found stuff on her in Ebony (major African American lifestyle magazine), assorted women's and African-American lifestyle sites: Madame Noire (women's site), [1] Black America Web, and other sites serving the African-American and entrepreneurial community:[2], [3], [4]; travel sites: [5], [6] . Plus other random stuff: [7]. This one meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Ebony is RS, I question whether the small blogs and company websites you listed: "She's Wanderful" blog (Alex rank 535,044 [8]), "Brooklyn Buttah" blog (Alexa rank 12,543,151 [9]), "Leisure Group Travel" blog (Alexa rank 1,818,178 [10]), the company website of the PR firm J. Walter Thompson, etc., meet our WP:RS standards for a WP:BLP? DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's so bad that WP:TNT and WP:SPAM applies -- and I've no interest in trying to fix it as it seems sure to be a magnet for more spam. Regardless of whether Montanabw is right about WP:GNG, delete per TNT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Also over the top promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. I can find insufficient reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CA7M. Should I A7 the page?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.Promocional article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 00:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dicko Fils

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

does not meet GNG or NMUSICIAN DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't let me finish creating the page or adding sources. Slow down. Also, don't put up a deletion debate if you haven't done your own research to determine whether or not the musician is notable. SpikeballUnion (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as Nom - SpikeballUnion sorry, I had two tabs open in my browser and meant to tag a different article, not this one. My apologies for the error. DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That's fine. Sorry as well. SpikeballUnion (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harmen Liemburg

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

no indication of notability - no references DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources, category and authority control. Roosjeingrid (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he certainly seems to meet WP:ARTIST, on the basis of "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Then there is the matter of his awards at international exhibitions, which would seem to meet "has won significant critical attention." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Has work in a) Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam and B) Musée des Arts Décoratifs, Paris. Refs needed for these claims, but if true notability is achieved per above and this should be snow kept.198.58.162.176 (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, per his work and the news articles about him.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as Nom At the time I nominated this there were no sources attached and my own search (being restricted to an English-language search) was unable to find any. The situation has obviously been rectified with the addition of Dutch-language RS and the article passes GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society for Blind Children

WP:Speedy keep reason #1

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standard for notability (WP.ORG, WP:GNG) because only primary and promotional sources are available. Fails WP:V because no reliable sources cover this topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Collier (actor)

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

I have looked, but have found no evidence that this passes WP:BIO. Bit-part actor. Narky Blert (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tone and style of the article are illustrative of why we base articles on secondary sources and not on primary works by the subject. The 3 sources are IMDb, which is not rated a reliable source, and two websites that are created by the subject. No passing of GNG and no indication that he passes notability for actors either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, and I can find insufficient reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xpressdocs

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

Plenty of press releases but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising, with the information, sources and history all emphasizing it, all or alone are enough for delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches on the name return some coverage for what appears to be an unrelated product from Compliance Xpressware, though that may have been subsequently renamed as CXConvert. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the many press releases, I can see enough to verify this as a company going about its business, but not to establish it as being of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear advertising only bias, no evidence of WP:CORP being satisfied. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Kuenstler

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single reliable source about the subject. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a CV and article makes no claims of notability. I can find insufficient reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great wall in US-Mexico border

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

Considered this as possible A10 for Mexico–United States barrier or Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#U.S..E2.80.93Mexico_border_wall_proposal, but figured it might be controversial so brining it to AfD. The "great wall" is by no means the common name for the Trump proposal, and our existing articles on the subject more than cover it with this simply being a content fork from either the barrier article or the Trump immigration policy article. There is no need for this article in Wikipedia at this time. I TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "tear down this wall". Redundant and ungrammatical to boot. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider to expand this important article of actuality.

--Opus88888 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Mexico–United States barrier. Already a perfectly good article on topic.Glendoremus (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now, simply redirect to ~~Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#U.S..E2.80.93Mexico_border_wall_proposal~~ Executive Order 13767. Do not redirect to Mexico–United States barrier, as that is an article on the current structure, not Trump's highly notable plan, and there is ~~basically no~~ much less content on the plan there -- nor should there be. Such a redirect would confuse and mislead readers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is obviously notable but it's already covered elsewhere. I don't think there's a need for the redirect since "in US-Mexico border" is ungrammatical and unlikely to come up. It would anyway need to be re-redirected later if a new wall is constructed and gets its own article. If it is to be made a redirect, it could go to either Mexico–United_States_barrier#Trump_administration or Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#U.S..E2.80.93Mexico_border_wall_proposal. Mortee (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect necessary because Mexico–United States barrier has got the topic covered, and as a search term, this adds nothing. < It's a big wall; hard to miss..E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have Executive Order 13767.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes that would be the best redirect target, at this stage. I've modified my comment above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with a redirect at this stage is that because it is currently grammatically incorrect (I would have moved before AfD if I had noticed at the time), and that even if made "Great wall on the US-Mexico border", I doubt such a specific search term would be used, so I'm not sure the utility of a redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's close enough for a redirect, per WP:CHEAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with a Redirect to Executive Order 13767. Harmless, WP:CHEAP, might even help some hapless soul searching for info on the topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no need for a redirect. I don't believe the project is known as the "Great wall", so a redirect would not be useful. The article appears to be a prank. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Montano

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

The topic does not look to be notable. References either only have a passing mention or are connected to the subject. (eg lacasting). Acting only seems to be in minor roles. Article is also written in peacock language, and is promotional. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 10 February 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 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord what a mass of (self)-promotion. Gnews yields zero results for this particular person by that name. Utterly fails GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tone is totally unencyclopedic and over promotional. This might be overcome if there was some substance, but there is not. Montano has been a bit part actress, specializing in unnamed roles. The commercials and music videos do not add up. The list of political candidates she has supported may sound impressive, but it is unclear anything she did to support them makes her notable. In fact it is not clear what she did to support them at all. Said she did? that is not notable. donated to their campaigns? Generally not notable. Montano may well be a nice lady, but she does not pass our standard for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a CV and full of puffery. I can find insufficient reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Band

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

No claim of notability in article, cannot find any reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND Rogermx (talk) 20:51, 10 February 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 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support notability. Poorly written article. No activity since creation by SPA. Aoziwe (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single EP issued after disbandment. Not sufficient for WP:BAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most of the "keep" votes don't adequately address WP:NOTNEWS concerns, and both the article and some of the comments here seem to border on righting great wrongs. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalupe García de Rayos

This article was moved from Guadalupe García de Rayos to Deportation of Guadalupe García de Rayos during the discussion process by Bk33725681. Please leave this note at the top of this discussion page for the benefit of new participants. Dash77 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biography of a living person known for one event only CatapultTalks (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable for the following reasons:

1. Two U.S. citizens are being harmed. The children.

2. This is not about notably of an event but information about the consequences of Trump change in deportation policy.

3. There will likely be a court challenge and likely a stay on the deportation that harms two delicate U.S. citizens.

I would prefer the focus of the article to not be about the mother, but about the two children who are being harmed. You may know that a mother sacrifices her life for her children and gives everything she has for them, out of love. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add as much reliablly sourced information about the harmful effects that this is having on the children as you can find. But that doesn't mean that the mother's coverage in the article should be reduced. The article can cover both the mother and the children to the degree that is necessary to inform the readers about what is going on. Bk33725681 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The children of criminals often suffer for the misdeeds of their parents, and using their experience as a rationale for inclusion in the encyclopedia has no support in policy or guideline. Marteau (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - there's been lots of attention and protests. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete - certainly Trump's immigration policy represents a huge and notable change from the past. Ms. García de Rayos's role as an early example of an immigrant affected by Trump's policies therefore certainly merits mention in some of those articles. It is not clear to me as yet whether her own role is notable enough to merit a separate article. Rosa Parks, for example, is notable because she became a major focal point of the civil rights movement. If Ms. García de Rayos becomes a similar icon in the fight against Trump's policies she will be similarly notable. However I think it is too early to say whether she will be notable for more than just this one incident. This incident--although obviously devastating to her family--may not be sufficiently notable in the more public sphere to warrant a separate article. My views could change, however, even in the time it takes for this discussion to run its course if, for example, Ms. García de Rayos emerges as an ongoing leader in the fight against Trump's policies. If, however, her public role turns out to be limited to this one incident, she should be mentioned in other articles but there is no need for a separate article for Ms. García de Rayos. Dash77 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is not notable because of the Mom. I find it notable because of the continued harm to two teenage citizens. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least as yet, I don't think it is notable for that reason either. It doesn't go into any detail on the impact to the two children from reliable sources. For example, it mentions that the daughter wants to be a doctor. One can speculate that this might be affected by the mother's deportation. But it only becomes notable for that reason if there are reliable sources (not speculation by Wikipedians) that go into how the childrens' lives have been affected. Right now the article is basically a brief article about the deportation of the mother, not the children. I do agree with Bk33725681 that changing the article to be specifically about the deportation is an improvement. Dash77 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I changed the article's title to "Deportation of Guadalupe García de Rayos" because she is notable only for this one event. This is getting so much media coverage and is notable as an early, well covered act from the new Trump administration. Bk33725681 (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion moving an article while such a discussion is in process can be confusing and should be noted both at the top and the bottom of the discussion page. I've done so; however it wasn't my move and so if I'm not doing this correctly hopefully someone can correct me. Dash77 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! Thanks for telling me about that guideline. I was not aware of it. And thanks for posting the notifications too. I appreciate what you did. Bk33725681 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any development/change to the deportation story, this can be noted in the EO article. At this point it is unlikely that the deportation will be reversed CatapultTalks (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my confusion, but what is an 'EO article'? What does 'EO' stand for? I Googled 'EO' in connection with Wikipedia and couldn't find anything--and 'EO' doesn't seem to be the initials of anyone connected with Ms. Garcia de Rayos. Dash77 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the EO (Executive order) - Executive Order 13768, under which Ms. Rayos was presumably deported. CatapultTalks (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, and nothing about this rises above the level of news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highly newsworthy this month--but I doubt it'll be memorable same time next year. So I agree: News need not clutter up Wikipedia. It's not the right platform. Instead, I suggest a standard news archive like New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or AzCentral [the Phoenix newspaper]. Dwight666 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has been moved to "Deportation of Guadalupe García de Rayos" I probably tend towards Keep. So far I feel that neither the mother nor her children are notable for more than this one event. However with the focus of the article shifted to this one event, it becomes notable because there has been a sea change in US immigration policy--which seems likely to last, possibly with changes, for at least four years. As such this is a notable event marking that change. Dash77 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and it's a severely slanted article. DrStrauss talk 12:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It will become obvious over time either way whether this is news or not.
Delete - Information in this maudlin and unencyclopedic article more properly belongs in other articles and not under the name of a non-notable person. Marteau (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was moved from Guadalupe García de Rayos to Deportation of Guadalupe García de Rayos during the discussion process by Bk33725681. Please leave this note at the bottom of this discussion page for the benefit of the closing administrator. Dash77 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Devops. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dataops

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

No references. No explanation of why this topic is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few sources online, but I can't tell what this is. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Devops, of course. Isn't independently notable, but I know it's a buzzword floating around and people will definitely be searching for it. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as above. Every management buzzword does not get an article. Text needs to be promotional and have cited sources on the topic. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akela Cooper

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

A working, but non-notable writer. There are a few hits, but they are simple mentions of her. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, the information is unconvincing and the sources are only mere announcements. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The writer is notable for working on three currently airing series; and for being of African-American descent, bolstering diversity on Wikipedia. The page is well trafficked as well. LLArrow (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Simply not much press coverage of her. You can't inherit notability from TV series or your ethnic background. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails basic WP:GNG. Nothing notable about subject. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Current sources are a PR announcement and a TV Guide listing. CBS527^Talk 19:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the WP:GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:Entertainer and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NaXis DG

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

this artist fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The claim that the subject has won some listed awards is quite promotional and lacks sources backing the claim —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely nothing meets WP:GNG and totally lacking in independent reliable sources (and I can find none.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unconvincing sourced by only announcements. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I wasn't able to find an ounce of reliable coverage about him online. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - astroturfing by sockpuppets. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hyped up claims, but I can see only blogs, Wordpress, and psssing mentions - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remotely Funny

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Non-noteable unreleased television show. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it comes out on February 13, so more info will be added then. BeanoMaster (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is now enough info, with more in the coming days, for it to not be considered for deletion. BeanoMaster (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now until the show is released, no point just deleting 3 days before its released. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So that's decided then. BeanoMaster (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K Venkatakrishna Rao

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

The subject of the article fails WP:NACADEMIC and. in fact, does not have a PhD. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone who graduated and started an academic career in August 2016(1). I can't find sources other than the school pages and the subject's own blog, which are the references given. As it happens, the user has only edited this page, has a name similar to the subject, and uploaded the image, which is only otherwise found on the subject's blog, according to a Google reverse image search. Mortee (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 20:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:TOOSOON; we almost never keep assistant professors at the start of their careers. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC, subject having not received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources nor having any published papers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2016#District 10. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 23:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LuAnn Bennett

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

Non-notable political candidate. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability". Keri (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2016#District 10. I created this redirect in May 2016 and it should have remained that way. Bennett fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The sources used in the article are weak, do not establish significant coverage. Redirects are cheap, and she could be a search term if anyone wants to know about that election. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Muboshgu, who hits the nail right on the head. Lepricavark (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above, WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have articles on unelected members of the US house.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Kidd

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:Politician. Political candidate who was never elected. Zigzig20s (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What requirement is there that a candidate hold office for notability? Maybe you could be specific about how you are reading GNG? He is widely covered in the press and has received national attention. This is a SNOW issue, as I see it. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bangabandhu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

In fairness, the entry was created by someone else though I added the bulk of the text.

I see you've now returned to add WP:Politician to WP:GNG without answering the question I posed. What about either of those policies leads you to believe the subject is not notable? As I read it, both confirm his notability. The third point of WP:Pol references standard notability requirements. Kidd is abudantly notable -the dozens of references on Google News leave no doubt. Again, WP:SNOW. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unelected candidates for political office do not meet the criteria set out in WP:Politician and are usually deleted, unless the subject meets WP:GNG before their campaign WP:POLOUTCOMES. The existing consensus is that races for public office may be notable, (e.g. United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014 ) and that unelected candidates fall under WP:ONEEVENT. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a helpful comment, but if you check the links, you'll see he's received coverage before he ran for office. Could you share more about the emerging consensus? It wouldn't make much sense to include coverage of the Republican Primary in Utah's Third District without a wikilink to the candidate's page, would it? This is a national level race.Bangabandhu (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you clarify how you read WP:POLOUTCOMES to suggest deletion? It says that pages of national level candidates are deleted after their campaign is unsuccessful. Nothing says implicitly or explicitly that it should be removed before. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:POLOUTCOMES needs some updating based on the past few years of developed consensus. It is the usual outcome now that "candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted" (striking the leading word losing). The reason for this development is that races for political office fit under WP:ONEEVENT, and that in general, since notability is not temporary, the candidates themselves do not become notable outside of the campaign (event). In addition, for many candidates, the wiki page is sourced to primary sourced material (including campaign websites). The general guidance is that candidates may "still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." --Enos733 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, POLOUTCOMES does not say that national-level candidates are deleted only after the election results roll in and they've lost. It doesn't matter whether the election is in the past, the present or the future — if a person has not already held a political office that clears NPOL, then they don't get an article because candidate. A non-winning candidate might still clear a notability guideline for some other reason, such as already having held another notable office (e.g. having lost the presidency is not going to get Hillary Clinton deleted, because she has been the First Lady and a senator and a cabinet official) or having preexisting notability in another career (e.g. Al Franken was already notable as a writer and comedian, so his eligibility for an article did not have to wait until he won his senate seat) — but a person who can make no claim of preexisting notability is not eligible for a Wikipedia article because of the candidacy per se. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is basically a campaign brouchure for Kidd. He is a one-issue candidate for the party nomination for the US house. If he gets elected to the US house he will be notable, if he does not he almost certainly will not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe he is a single issue candidate? I see many different issues in the entry, from his stance on abortion to his position on DC self determination. If you're concerned that its too self-promoting, why not edit it to include a more balanced view? I don't understand how this "consensus" is in the best interest of Wikipedia's mission or its reader's interest, and question whether it is widely accepted.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Kidd is an important figure in an important race. He has received attention far outside of his home district - please see the references from DCist, Politico and other national publications. There is room for improvement in his entry and I hope other editors will make those changes rather than deleting. WP:NPOL does not instruct to delete entries before an election, only after, if a candidate is unsuccessful. I am confused why that is not applied in this case. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we base these articles by WP:POLITICIAN and the fact he hasn't held office yet, makes it unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:POL says that holding office is a requirement, it just says that ones candidacy alone is not a qualification. He's received national attention for his positions.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Serves as nothing more than a campaign advertisement for a non-notable person. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? Every sentence is referenced to reliable, impartial sources.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate, in and of itself — a non-winning candidate might have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy (e.g. already having held another notable office, or already having passed our notability standards in another career), but does not pass WP:NPOL until they win the election. Nothing stated or sourced here, however, demonstrates that he's notable for anything more than being a future candidate. Our role is not to be a repository of campaign brochures for every candidate in every election. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that as soon as you become a candidate, you don't automatically qualify for a Wikipedia page. But if you do become a candidate, and you do gain national attention, and you do make important, noteworthy stances, then you do reach notability. In this instance - and many others - editors are misinterpreting what it means to have a presumption of notability. Just because someone wins office or announces their candidacy, there is no presumption of notability. But there is no presumption of non-notability, either. Look at the cites here. He's got attention around the country. He's been widely quoted. He's been an activist before he was a candidate. If he were, say, a local activist on environmental issues there wouldn't be nearly this scrutiny. But its applied to Kidd because of concerns that he might be notable only because he's a candidate - which is not the case. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the sources in the article, just two are non-local to the district where he's running — one of the two is a Gothamist-network blog, which is a source that would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been fully covered off but cannot be a bringer of GNG, and neither of them are about Kidd: they're both about Chaffetz, and just briefly namecheck Kidd as a provider of soundbite at the very end. A national officeholder's primary challenger would be routinely expected to occasionally get namechecked in coverage of the officeholder, so that is not substantive coverage of the type it would take to actually make him more notable than the norm, because he isn't the subject of that "national coverage". If you want to make a non-winning candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the grounds that "media coverage exists", what you need to do is show that the volume of coverage is approaching Christine O'Donnell levels — this isn't just failing to be in the distant exurbs of enough, it's failing to be even in the same time zone as enough. Bearcat (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. DrStrauss talk 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that more? I note that you added a unreferenced tag to the article, which doesn't make much sense, as there are lots of sources. Maybe you could elaborate? Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article's sources do not meet all 3 requirement. Current sources:

1, 2 and 8 - passing mention in article - not significant

3, 6 and 7 - primary source directly from Kidd - not independent

4 and 5 - announcement of possible candidacy- full of quotes from Kidd - more PR about candidacy - not independent.

G searches and HighBeam provided nothing to help establish notability. CBS527^Talk 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most helpful, thoughful comment in this thread and ought to be a model for contributions to AFD discussion. You're right that sourcing could be stronger. One important consideration is that more coverage is coming daily and that if it's deleted all this work will need to be recreated. I initially thought this was a SNOW issue, but understanding now the scrutiny for these types of articles, I can see why it's a topic of debate. Here are a couple recently created sources. Yes, none is a full on profile of Kidd, but notability doesn't require a dedicated profile, does it? I think the totality of the articles about him and his candidacy - as well as the trajectory of the coverage - should give us reassurance. Here are some recent, additional searches - not sure if they turned up in Highbeam.

Published yesterday about this role in DC and Utah politics

More recent coverage

Bangabandhu (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right that he will be getting better coverage in the future though right now it's WP:TOOSOON. If this article is deleted, it can be accessed through WP:REFUND if some one is is interested in expanding the article. You are correct that the source don't need to be about him but it would need to have in depth coverage of him. The 2 articles cited above just have a passing mention of him as a candidate running against Chaffetz. These sources are independent and reliable and could be used to establish his position on this issue. Unfortunately, they do not provide the significant coverage needed to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I'd never seen REFUND before. Still, it seems like the "grace period" mentioned elsewhere could be extended in this instance. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Butcher

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

BLP sourced only by self-published material. Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Linkedin should generally not be used as a source at all, it clearly cannot be the only source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Genre Interactive Feature Film

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

No evidence that this term has come into general use: the first reference does not mention it and the second only states that the director uses the term. No notability for either the director or the "Karma" film, which still does not appear to have been released : Noyster (talk), 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 15:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a couple months short of two years since the article was created. I would think their would be more info if it was an ongoing project. Interestingly (to me anyway) this is not a new idea. When my mother took me to HemisFair '68 one of the exhibits was a theater showing a film and at various points it would stop. We were then instructed to push one button or the other to decide which direction the story would take. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 10 February 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 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If true an interesting new wrinkle on interactive cinema, but clearly not notable yet -- not even to merit a redirect. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NK Dokležovje

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

The Slovenian football clubs fails notability criteria as they never played in the national cup or the national level league (level 3 and above). I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability, fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail the notability criteria for clubs Spiderone 09:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Keshia Chanté. I don't see any particularly compelling reasons to avoid a redirect here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck It Tho (Keshia Chante song)

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

fails WP:NSONG article was PRODDED for the same reason already once Domdeparis (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keshia Chanté. f eminist 03:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no need to redirect). The song doesn't seem to be notable enough for a standalone article per WP:NSONG. I would have usually gone for a redirect, but in this case it has been created very recently and it is not being used. Considering that Redirects are costly, I would say deleting it is totally fine here. I also notice that the author of this article Chantesource seems to have a conflict of interest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Prikryl

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 03:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agreed: effectively completely unsourced article that in no way demonstrates any sort of notability. Looking at her individual roles, another "journeyman" actor, but none of the roles look to satisfy WP:NACTOR as they all appear to be "bit parts". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cang Xin

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

All I'm seeing is blatant promotion. On the off chance that he's notable, the article needs WP:TNT to achieve some readability. Timmyshin (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a resume and staying like that for over 3 years. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borderline notability. However, article is so poorly written there's no salvageable content. WP:TNT applies per nom. -Zanhe (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is much better after Arthistorian1977's cleanup; TNT no longer applies. And I'm convinced of his notability with this China Daily profile, and multiple exhibitions at major galleries and art museums. -Zanhe (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is poorly written and need rework, but there is no any doubt the subject is notable and passing WP:ARTIST with exhibitions in Saatchi Gallery, Seattle and Chicago Art Museums. I also found his work in permanent collection of ICP Museum in NYC just doing a 1 minute google search [11]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I cleaned up most of the promotional material and removed reference style list of exhibitions, as well as added some references Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arthistorian1977 and Zanhe's input. The subject is also discussed in a 2004 Washington Post article – via HighBeam (subscription required) . Enough I think for WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Amato

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is a bona fide "journeyman" actor, but only in "bit" roles. Thus, doesn't demonstrate notability under WP:NACTOR. Worse, the only source cited by the article is a WP:ABOUTSELF source – not good enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Nasafotie

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

No reliable sources as to this person's Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting "best of show" at the show he got the award is not enough to make one a notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Square

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

No refs and completely non notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable commercial complex in Singapore. There is no historical/cultural/economic importance and there are not enough sources available to pass WP:GEOFEAT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable commercial shopping mall and no reference.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StepGreen

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

Non-notable web service. Complete lack of independent coverage found online. Largoplazo (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a web search, StepGreen seems to be the name of several entities, and this API is not displayed in the results. Notability cannot be established. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 00:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article content is effectively documentation and how-to guidance for this terminated site/project. Aside from their surviving Wordpress project blog, Google Books shows a few passing mentions, but I am not seeing anything strong enough to indicate notability, whether by WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulahi measure

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

Not much out there that I can find on this. Two of the three citations are to the originator. The third is to a conference, at which the originator presented, and is likely intended to also be a reference to him. Overall, a recently invented term with no indication it has gotten outside recognition. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Can only find primary sources, all of which seem to have been written by the article's creator. No secondary sources means it fails WP:GNG. -- Shudde ^talk 18:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any in-depth secondary reliable sources; it fails WP:GNG. Without secondary sourcing, is not a good candidate for a merge or a redirect. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Not delete Secondary sources found: Here are two publications from Google sponsored authors using the Abdoulahi measure. You can check it here: https://www.google.com/patents/US9424299 https://www.google.com/patents/US9424298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clerk note: Bitsidibe is a Confirmed sockpuppet of Abd boubacar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abd boubacar. GAB^gab 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not remove Secondary sources exist but do not have high page rank.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Abd boubacar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*not delete This article needs to be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidibe12 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Sidibe12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clerk note: Sidibe12 is a Confirmed sockpuppet of Abd boubacar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abd boubacar. GAB^gab 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a concept coined and used by one person with no indication that it has become widely accepted or used, and no secondary sources about the topic. The two (identical in every detail except some file numbers, so in reality it is just one) patent grants linked above don't actually mention the Abdoulahi measure anywhere. --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
here is the reference article cited by each of the two articles above and using the proposed measure. You need to read really the articles. otherwise go to the references section:<< A. Boubacar et al., Concept Based Information Retrieval, International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, Aug. 2013.>> It seems that it is not your topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitsidibe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The research article is a primary source, and the patent application is, well, a patent application. Neither serves to show that the concept meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. This is not a peer review for a scientific journal - the process is rigorous in a different way, and there are different requirements that must be met. --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails notability check, and those opposing the delete above appear to have a WP:COI HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this article and I ask you to delete the article as soon as you can. Some people help me to make the article better. There is a problem with the name of the article which must be Semantic measure instead of "measure". The lack of secondary sources come from here. So delete it as soon as you can. You do not need to oppose other people views. Share your views. DELETE IT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd boubacar (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete at author request, per above. Tagged accordingly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Lightner Jr

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

Fails WP:BIO. As it stands after looking at it about a dozen times, seems to be put up to sell his books. Would need a goodly amount of work to pass WP:BIO and BLP. scope_creep (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources fail to establish notability being either minor mentions or non-independent email/interview quotes from the subject himself. Searches found more minor mentions and photo credits. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good doze of WP:TNT. Overly promotional "tribute" article that cannot be salvaged. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Shippey

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

Searches turned up a few trivial mentions, but no in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Dzhashi

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

Yet another article about a random ordinary journalist. Unremarkable person; lack of notability. XXN, 00:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A television journalist does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because she has an "our staff" profile on the primary source website of the news organization she works for — she gets a Wikipedia article when she's the subject of coverage from news organizations other than the one she works for, but nothing like that has been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikingvin

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

In January 2013 User:Gongshow proposed this for deletion with the rationale "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO; no significant coverage found in reliable sources; no charts or other criteria met.". The WP:PROD notice was removed without comment by an IP, but the article remains almost unchanged, minimally referenced, mainly to radio show playlists, with the best being a now-archived page on a terapija.net e-zine. I have interwikied the Slovenian Wikipedia article (as Aleksander Cepuš): a CV page which lists prolific activity and links, but I am not seeing reliable 3rd party sources which demonstrate the subject as meeting the notability criteria. I am therefore bringing this for wider discussion around the 2013 Prod rationale, as to whether the WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG criteria are met. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that subject meets WP:MUSICBIO or indeed WP:GNG. Precisely zero hits on a Google/GNews test. Looks like cross-wiki spam (with COI and SPA overtones) to me. Guliolopez (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Alvarado

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

One significant role is not enough, multiple are required. His other roles have all been extremely minor. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gavron

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

Was deprodded after the addition of several sources. However, all the sourcing revolves around his book about his mother's suicide. The book might be notable, but I don't think this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The news coverage is partly about him and partly about the book so there is some interest in him as a person. He has also written other books although clearly there is just the one thing he is mainly notable for. I think he probably just about scrapes over the line for notability. The article could do with a little expansion but not too much. If this were to grow into a big article that would be undue. If the consensus is not to keep then maybe this could be renamed and redrafted as a stub about the book. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not quite what we need independent notability, a book article can be explored if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Pittman

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

Was deprodded with the rationale: that prods were "not for "award-winning actresses who have starred on Broadway"". However, the article doesn't even state what "award" she has won. This is definitely borderline for me since she has had a significant role in a Broadway production, but WP:NACTOR states, "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Other than that one role, she's had parts, none of which, from what I can tell, are significant. The role in Luke Cage definitely doesn't appear significant. And the role in The Americans is also a minor supporting role. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one major role is not enough to pass the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough (yet, maybe one day) to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm finding quite a bit of coverage for her roles and it looks like one of the plays she's been in, King Liz, should be able to justify its own article - it just hasn't been written yet. She's also performed in multiple episodes of two major series, enough to where her character is mentioned in an overview/review for one of the episodes of The Americans and in this overall review of Luke Cage. She's not a hugely major player in the acting world, but I think that there's enough to justify her inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the award she won, the Theatre World Award. It looks like it's just big enough to give some notability, albeit not enough to keep on that basis alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see multiple in-depth articles in WP:RS. I added one for the HuffPo. Meets WP:GNG.198.58.162.176 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Funcrunch (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Justified by secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate coverage found to justify notability. jxm (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage established. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nick Knight (photographer). Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showstudio.com

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

Advertising article, which has had continual spammy updates since 2007. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without debating the merits of the article, have you considered alternatives to deletion, such as redirecting or merging, before listing the article for deletion and if so, why did you not use them? Regards So Why 16:45, 10 February 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 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG. Any worthwhile content can be added to the page of its founder/owner, Nick Knight (photographer), leaving a redirect to the same article. Edwardx (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @No User:SoWhy I haven't. For years, since 2007, it's been the target of substantial additions of advert muck, which has been stripped out on an ongoing basis. Recently, almost the whole article had to be junked to get back to encyclopedic content. If a redirect is applied, it will need protection. scope_creep (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was my observation, too, that the article was born of promotional intent and has stubbornly maintained that purpose for ten years, and that was my rationale for nominating this for speedy deletion. That said, if adequate sources aren't found to support notability, I'm neutral as to the choice between deletion and redirection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nick Knight (photographer); not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nick Knight (photographer); the studio itself doesn't need a separate article. - Brianhe (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my belief within weeks, or possibly months, that the link filled with another article full of puffer. I can't see why a redirect is necessary. All it does it reaffirm that he has the site, which is not notable in the first event. Catch 22. scope_creep (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I agree with Scope creep; there is nothing notable in the article, and the fact that he has a website is mentioned in his own page- so no need to redirect. However, Redirect as a second !v if it's required ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7: author requested deletion Primefac (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlawlessBeauty

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

Non-notable company with a lack of reliable secondary references which establish notability. A couple of notes about a piece in a magazine would need true citations so other editors could evaluate the pieces in any magazines. One of the other references does not even mention the company by name. That leaves claims to the companies own website which is primary of course. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this article appears to have been started by overwriting a redirect page for a different article. Be your own judge on that editors. [12] The article was marked as a speedy delete but an IP editor editing from a confirmed proxy server removed the speedy. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being the page creator and the only substantial contributor I am okay to delete this page. I have blanked the page under CSD G7. Yokessto (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7: author requested deletion Primefac (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlawlessBeauty

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

Non-notable company with a lack of reliable secondary references which establish notability. A couple of notes about a piece in a magazine would need true citations so other editors could evaluate the pieces in any magazines. One of the other references does not even mention the company by name. That leaves claims to the companies own website which is primary of course. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this article appears to have been started by overwriting a redirect page for a different article. Be your own judge on that editors. [13] The article was marked as a speedy delete but an IP editor editing from a confirmed proxy server removed the speedy. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being the page creator and the only substantial contributor I am okay to delete this page. I have blanked the page under CSD G7. Yokessto (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piffi allkrydda

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. —swpb^T 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial (non-exhaustive) source assessment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://kockens.se/produkter/piffi-allkrydda-original/	Source is the manufacturer of the subject		~ Some detail	✘ No
http://www.gp.se/livsstil/krog/krogkollen-bamba-1.4077979		?	Trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/kockens/pressreleases/kockens-firar-100-kryddstarka-aar-1328144	Press release		Fairly trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/nataliakazmierska/article16386493.ab		?	Trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.swedishfoodshop.com/kockens-piffi-allkrydda	COI; source is selling the subject		No detail	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=NXRQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&dq=%22Piffi+allkrydda%22+-wikipedia#v=onepage&q=%22Piffi%20allkrydda%22%20-wikipedia&f=false		?	Trivial mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=SnjcDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&dq=%22Piffi+allkrydda%22+-wikipedia#v=onepage&q=%22Piffi%20allkrydda%22%20-wikipedia&f=false		?	Trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—swpb^T 13:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet minimum threshold for notability. No independent, substantive coverage. It's product advertising.Glendoremus (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge First Financial

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

This company fails WP:GNG AND WP:ORGDEPTH. Only found minor and passing mentions from relatively primary unreliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company has articles and mentions on multiple reputable sources including, CTVNews, The Toronto Star and Financial Post. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silksnipe (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Silksnipe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- overly promotional article on an unremarkable financial services firm; significant RS coverage not found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. What comes are can be traced to the firm's own PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the news mainly for a manager's participation in a "massive criminal scheme" -- which of course is nowhere to be found in this sanitised article -- the firm fails WP:ORG. 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Yong

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

non-notable businessman, created by SPA (possibly COI?) editor Melcous (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator – subject does not meet notability criteria. Article creator appears to hold undeclared COI, in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of service. Citobun (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Nondi

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

Non notable footballer that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as a footballer that has not played in any WP:FPL Qed237 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and is nowhere near any other notability guideline. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Cursory US-based Google News search (to start) yields multiple results in support of WP:GNG and further development. Hmlarson (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG Spiderone 10:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to meeting WP:GNG is a top player in the top league in Kenya, being in the all-star team [14]. Nfitz (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hmlarson & Nfitz's rational and votes. I think the subject of the article just meets WP:NFOOTY though his achievements described above. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his achievements means he meets WP:NFOOTY; he needs to have played at senior international level or in a fully-professional league and hasn't done either. Number 5 7 09:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T'ien Ti Tao Ch'uan-shu P'ai

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

Promotional article with no real indication of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this style and the article doesn't provide any. Therefore, it appears that WP:GNG is not met. There's also nothing to show it meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaippuzha Kavu Temple

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

I'm not sure about what the notability guidelines for buildings or religious structures are, but in any case, I could not find any coverage about this temple. Theoretically, this could be speedied under A1, but the subject of the article is clear here, so A1 doesn't apply. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably exists but extremely unlikely to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 11:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Sharma (businessman)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marginal spam. Peacock. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and business person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrica Okano

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

Article fails both NACTOR and GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. If the production where she has a lead role actually becomes long standing then maybe, but too many such productions never go beyond a pilot for us to consider an article a year before hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student Visa Extension Fee Structure in India

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

this is a set of instructions for applying for a fee exemption, not an encyclopedia article DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The purpose of Wikipedia is WP:NOTHOWTO. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTHOWTO. David.moreno72 01:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopaedia article Spiderone 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object pairing

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

There is nothing to suggest that this concept is significant or notable in any field and I can find few (if any) non-Wiki related sources, none of which are particularly reliable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Encyclopedia shouldn't be for "here's a neat Idea I had". No sources out there to support this. ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unsourced WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references cited and quick search turns up nothing. Glendoremus (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy locating system

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

100% unreferenced OR tagged since 2013. No significant presence of this term in google search. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT may be warranted, but I found literature mentions - here or there (paywall), and the references of those. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are occasional usage. Some years ago heuristic of "fuzzy algorithms" based on fuzzy sets were popular newspash, and articles cropped up to apply to nearly all real-world problems. But this particular article is a 100% OR and the author seems lost interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Players

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

Non-notable subject. Can't find any independent references to support the claims, even if it was notable. Boneymau (talk) 06:16, 3 February 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 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything sufficient to support notability at this time. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, I can't seem to find even a reference to the group online which (I'd guess, I'm a bit new to this) gives cause to significantly doubt notability. --Tomnnnn (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any significant references in RS, though searches did reveal quite a few drama groups with this name around the world. Neiltonks (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hildreth

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability requirements for athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korey Wilson

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable ball hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chil Kong

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is harder to parse. Once you pull out all the bogus refs, they are still throwing a number of sources at you. It would take time to go through what's left and determine if there's anything there... I'll try to look at this later, but I can't make any promises. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cheremushkin

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

Lack of notability. Unreferenced article since 2007. XXN, 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This had WP:CHANCE and there are also no reliable sources now that can rescue this one. Kansiime (chat) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Want More

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

No significant coverage. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenevive. f eminist 03:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. f eminist 03:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the artist's own article far too soon. The single fails WP:NALBUM in all points. All sources in the article are non-RS and just listings or social media posts. I tried to spot some other sources, but like the artist, this song has basically 0 coverage anywhere. It therefore also fails WP:GNG. The article should therefore be deleted. No redirect, since the artist's page will probably deleted too. Dead Mary (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Kerr

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 03:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mercado de Campo de Ourique

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

Non-notable company. While a "market" in the sense of an area where several merchants gather to sell their wares might be notable merely for its prolonged existence, this entity appears to be a garden-variety supermarket, with no assertion of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion yet about this topic but being mentioned in a bunch of notable travel guides [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] mean that there are some, probably Portuguese, RS about the subject. Someone who speaks the language might be able to help with that. Regards So Why 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment (leaning on keep) It is a mildly known landmark in Lisboa (I think I've never went there, even when I lived there, but it is a familiar name). It is not a "garden-variety supermarket" as the nominator says. It is a Market (place) from the 1930's (according to the one source in the article and the building look like being from that era) which was recuperated and re-purposed to be something in between a market and a mall, in 2013-11-26 (announcement at the city of Lisboa site). It is owned by the city, and run by a company (MCO - most likely short for the market's name) which is not clear from the source I read (market's page on the city of Lisboa's site) if it is private or public (likely private, but the source for that is my memory and my knowledge of the country, both not very reliable :-). The official page is under (re?)construction, who knows since when... Overall, the building alone for the architecture and history, plus the fact that there is something there at all (garden-variety or not) is probably notable. Nabla (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Vinchi

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

Musician that fails WP:MUSICBIO. While some minor coverage is found on google searches there is no siginificant coverage. The references given either do not mention him,only list him as a name on a linked video, are by a promotions company, or are just announcements of a debut release. noq (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<<<< Whoever wrote this is absolutely wrong. The Hot97 article, one of the most internationally recognized Hip Hop brands, specifically introduces Vinchi from Detroit and gives him support, then premiering his new video. This artist has specifically had his music and videos featured by multiple of the top Hip Hop brands on earth, which are publications that are in no way directly affiliated with the artist. These are platforms only Major Artists are featured on. The "references" given do entirely mention him, as they are references featuring HIS music and music video releases, or videos that he produced and supplied the music on. He has been featured by Hot97, The Detroit News, SoRaspy, has been featured in Spotify's top playlists, and has worked with Platinum Certified Producers. His video work and music has been featured on Transworld Snowboarding, Snowboarder Magazine, and more. Whoever wrote the article above has absolutely no knowledge of the music industry and the sources that have been included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.107.124 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a blog entry from a New York radio station that gives a link to a debut video - it is not in depth coverage. Please provide sources for the "featured by multiples of the top Hip Hop brands on earth". The IAA reference is from a company that is designed to promote their clients - does not sound independent, the snowboarding references are about Kyle Mack - they only refer to Vinchi as his name is in the credits of the video - the references are NOT about Vinchi, THe Hot97 article consists of three lines linking to a video - there is no commentary about him other than the announcement of the video, the Detroit news article does not mention his name. The thisis50 site is unclear about who actually posts the content - is it being added by "members" or editorial staff? The site is unclear. The So Raspy article is not significant coverage - it only really announces the release of a record and reads like a rehash of a press release. noq (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The blog entry from a New York radio station is a worldwide recognized brand which receives constant international attention. It is an honor in Hip Hop for Hot97 to share a rappers video, and in this case it was a brief description and the video included on the page since the entire point of an article is to share the actual music of an artist, especially one that a major platform is attempting to help break out. IAA is a company that is responsible for launching several of the largest Hip Hop artists in recent years, including PNB Rock and many others. The Detroit News article is covering a facility that Vinchi helped create, and the Detroit News interviews and joins him on a recording session in the article if you were to watch the video, that is a visual coverage article. SoRaspy is another worldwide Hip Hop brand, owned by Jadakiss and of course it isn't a lengthy description, as these Hip Hop sites are sharing a video with their viewers to support the audio and visual creation. This artist already has a Wiki-Box when "Jay Vinchi" is searched on Google, linking all of his major platforms including a Spotify channel with over half of a million streams. This artist has been featured in televised interviews with news stations, and has worked with Platinum Producers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.107.124 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hot97 3 line link to a video is not WP:significant coverage. It needs much more than that to establish notability. IAA might have been successful in promoting other artists it does mean that all their clients are automatically notable - that would be a nice marketing feature for them but it is not so. I don't see a video on the Detroit News article - which mentions many other names but not his which seems odd if he is so influential in it. The wiki box is not significant and may well disappear if the wikipedia article is removed. noq (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why you are being so clearly negative towards this page, I just watched the Detroit News video, in the article, and saw his interview and section of freestyling with the camera crew in the studio. It is on there, broad as day. How is a Hot97 feature of an artist not significant coverage, when it is a post specifically meant to share the video? So if an athlete had their new snowboarding or skateboaring edit featured on Transworld, or Sports Center, that wouldn't be significant coverage? Combine that with a So Raspy featured, both of which being major Hip Hop publications? The features, verified social media and Spotify, features on Spotify playlists, several hundreds of thousands of streams, news features, major Hip Hop publication features. There are Wikipedia pages up on this website for artists with no publications, no verification, and very few other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.107.124 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links I have provided previously for what is regarded as WP:significant coverage. And as for your last comment, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] applies. noq (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, and yes from what is seen between the articles referenced, WP:significant coverage exists in various forms as by the definition supplied on that page. That sentence was not said in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] manner, it was in the sense that we have had conversations regarding this page previously, and your approach is seemingly negative, and completely false. You literally falsely claimed that the Detroit News article didn't have a video, and didn't feature Vinchi when clearly, I watched the video on Detroit News and you can see his interview and freestyle in the studio. So as far as your professionalism or the fact you brought this page to a deletion claim, is logically off due to the fact you are speaking in the manner you are, and not checking your own statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:4D02:4453:F5A8:1C9A:EB84:C668 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I actually wrote. You interpret what I say as negative, but you start you first response here by claiming I am wrong - I then responded to each of your points - I still do not see a video link on the detroit news page but it is possible that that only appears if you allow the website to track you which I do not. The article itself does not mention him at all which seems odd if he such a significant part of what is being covered as it mentions many other people. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant to your bringing up unnamed "There are Wikipedia pages up on this website for artists with no publications, no verification, and very few other references". As previously requested, please tell me what references "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as significant coverage is defined. Just repeating previous statements that I have already responded to do not count - either show why my interpretation is wrong and back it up rather than just calling my negative. As you do not seem to have contributed to Wikipedia on any other article, I have to ask if you have a WP:Conflict of interest here? noq (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a WP:Conflict of interest I am a Metro Detroit resident who created this page when I saw Jay Vinchi on television with professional snowboarder Kyle Mack and noticed he had many articles with no central hub of information. As for a display of your interpretation in a logical manner here you are: you reference WP:significant coverage and, as defined in that topic, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", and as for actual coverage "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." As for my reasoning of saying you're being negative to this article in specific, as defined by the terms written in said WP articles defining notability, the significance of the artist was already defined prior to this deletion notice. The sources properly fit into Wikipedia:Verifiability so I believed you already knew the definition to all and how they applied to this artist. Basically, this artist has been featured in and has had his music featured in verifiabile, reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Also, I believe you should read this section as well: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." << That is not what I have done, but you have treated it as if that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B120:42C1:45B4:BA20:C486:766B (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all nine citations. Half of them don't mention Jay Vinchi at all, and IMO none of them is WP:RS. The only citation which contains any detail at all about JV is the one by Industry All Access, which describes itself on its homepage as "a full service entertainment consulting firm. We provide exceptional problem-solving techniques paired with industry knowledge and clear-cut execution to help our clients achieve their objectives. We are dedicated to creating the foundation that will turn our clients [sic] visions into realities." No independent coverage, fails WP:BIO. And no, he can't inherit notability from Kyle Mack. Narky Blert (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ruiz (ball hockey)

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The references provided by Toddy1 appear to establish the requisite notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Khawaja

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

BLP article that has no references. Fails WP:BIO. Message was sent to creator to apply ref's about month ago, but so far no results. scope_creep (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely unsourced and then clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 4 more authentic links in the page and hope those will make article better for approval. The links are in "Professional Career", "Political/Public Service" and "Philanthropy and Civil Society Work" sections.Gresys (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have added these two links also which are more relevant to his government posts.

https://iabhopal.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/contrast-c-m-punjab-p-m-pakistan/ https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/140333-talent-fellowship-fund-launched Gresys (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Following two more authentic and neutral links about his responsibilities with CM Punjab are added.

http://www.bfp.com.pk/detail-news/bfp-announcement1.html http://tribune.com.pk/story/293012/tevta-chairman-slot-bureaucrat-general-and-businessman-eyed/ Gresys (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know you like your article, but one bolded !vote only please, per WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about adding the soures to the article and using inline citation, so we can check to determine if the guy is really notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is still no valid sources for this article, and it would need a major rewrite, or copy edit to ensure it meet WP standards and to remove the advertising links which point to hotels and other groups. No real sources have been incorporated into the article as yet. scope_creep (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main flaw with the article is that it has inline links, rather than citations. This can be fixed. As a Pakistan businessman, politician and columnist he is mentioned in Pakistan newspapers and websites: Pakistan Observer, Lahore World, Daily Times, Pakistan Defence, Pakistan Telegraph. He is clearly notable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is not a politician. Nowhere in the articles or refs does it mention that. He is part of a gang that has set up a new political party, but as yet, he has not been elected. He akin to an insider, or possible something like K-street lobbyist or a consultant. I think from those ref's he is probably notable. I think the article probably needs substantial copyedit. scope_creep (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography and self promotion. --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason to think that the user who wrote the biography is the subject of the biography?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to QED (text editor). Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FRED (text editor)

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

Last revision was made over a year ago, doesn't appear to fit with WP:GNG at first glance. There's barely any sources that I can find on the topic of the article, and the QED (text editor) article covers it more in-depth. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to QED (text editor) - per nom, basically. It's hard to look for sources because "Fred" is a first name. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to QED (text editor). I tried search for several variations, such as "fred" "friendly editor" and "fred" "qed" "gmap", but there doesn't seem to be any coverage in reliable sources. It's entirely possible that the coverage exists but is hidden offline in ancient computing books, but one would expect something to show up on Google Books or Archive.org. If anyone finds sources that discuss this in depth, they can recreate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aioncloud

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

Web based service with no indication of WP:notability. Most of the history is about Monitorapp - an existing article, the rest is a list of features. The sources about Aioncloud are either not independent or just routine coverage of press releases. Given the repeated recreation it may be worth considering salting the article. noq (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Monitorapp ; no particular notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the Monitorapp page it does not look like that is notable either. Seems to have mainly been edited by the company itself and is horribly promotional. Not finding anything significant on google. noq (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete not much to merge, it is pure advertising sourced only to the company. It might be more likely an article on the company could survive, but the current Monitorapp is blatantly promotional too. W Nowicki (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable promotional company. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian rules football in South East Queensland. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northshore Jets Australian Football Club

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

fails WP:GNG. a 4th division amateur team in state league. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect ~~per nom~~ After seeing Jenks24's comment, this is a likely search term and a redirect is more appropriate. Still adamant that other pages in the lower divisions of the league shouldn't have a page, and if this is closed as a redirect, most of those pages should be redirected too (same with VAFA clubs). Flickerd (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is it seems some non trivial and non routine sports reporting material in local papers. It is also part of

which I suggest if it goes so should many? of these too. There is either a balance across this whole subject area with articles for each club, or all the minor ones get grouped, redirected and merged into summary articles, by competition. By itself in isolation not notable but as part of the whole subject area it can have its own article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

generally speaking you would need something more than local coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment most of them do not have enough notability and shouldn't have a page, a cleanup is probably required, it just most likely hasn't been noticed as an issue until now. Same should be done for clubs in lower divisions of the Victorian Amateur Football Association. Flickerd (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian rules football in South East Queensland or a a specific league article if it exists. I agree with LibStar and Flickerd that the club is not independently notable but it's still a plausible search term so I see no harm in redirecting. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catálogo alfabético de apellidos

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

Does not meet Notablity guideline for Books.

Does not even come close to meeting any of the five criteria of notability for a book. The article consists mostly of lengthy excerpts or examples from the book. Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Its an WP:OLDBOOK whose value as a historical source in the Philippines is indisputable. It's part of the teachings in Philippine history.--RioHondo (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with RioHondo. There is proof of notability, regarding the historical significance of the book, as it molded the contemporary Filipino name, by introducing surnames to many Filipinos, which in the pre-Spanish era, had varying naming practices for persons, usually names with no surname, multiple names with no surname, or names plus the surname (the clan name).
Strong Keep due to the book's historical significance as a mentioned by other users.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Although the article could use some cleanup, the book has been mentioned in various history books due to its historical significance (the fact that during the Spanish colonial period, natives were required to adopt Spanish surnames, apparently for tax-collection purposes). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting general notability guidelines now that lots of cites show that the book was well studied. I've also removed the unsourced parts of the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an object of great historical impact, it seems to me that one can no more judge it solely by WP:BKCRIT than one can the Domesday Book and the Yellow Pages. Largoplazo (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:OLDBOOK, the criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT is intended solely for contemporary books (~1945+). This book is old (which in itself is usually enough to establish notability) and it is widely cited in academic works on Philippine colonial history. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brazier

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

fails NACTOR and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NACTOR. I could not locate additional sources outside of IMDB and social media. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's questionable how many of these roles are even notable... let alone the lack of WP:SIGCOV. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. S S Mantha

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

This appears to be an unsourced autobiography. I am unable to find any independent RS about SS Mantha. DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided are not reliable. Delete per WP:BLP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a hot mess. Reads like it was written by President Trump about his besty in India. Even if he were notable, the over the top description is pure spam. We are a charity not a web host for resumes. 02:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Request you to please keep the personal comments /hate aside and share constructive criticism. The article is being edited continuously and it would help if there were more serious comments about what needs to be edited instead. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn bay (talk • contribs) 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An embarrassingly peacock BLP. No pass of WP:Prof on basis of citations. Can WP:GNG be passed as science administrator? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:Academics and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The external sources look sketchy, there are a lot of quasi-relevant things. I don't think it meets GNG. South Nashua (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A New Song (album)

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

unsourced, fails GNG Mduvekot (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced. Not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable album. - TheMagnificentist 13:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Topps

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No qualifying awards. No nontrivial reliable sourcing (only reference is a trivial name-drop. No sourced biographical content. Survived an AFD a decade ago on the now-deprecated theory that willingness to show off one's surgically inflated breasts made a woman notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's assessment is correct. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. The 2006 "well-known pornstar" rationale for keeping does not cut it without RS support. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't won any significant awards, no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability established nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karunatilaka Amunugama

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. the keep arguments from last AfD were far from convincing , trying to argue inherent notability rather than satisfying the significant coverage test. coverage is mainly 1 line mentions and is not about him as a subject. there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador including to a "major" country. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Lacks significant or in depth coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG.Dan arndt (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find much specifically about him. All I could find for him were routine coverage for ambassador-related activities. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudus, Kudus

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

Not a capital and few results came up. MTroll (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The town name itself is "Kudus", if you search for it I think you will get a lot of results. I titled the article "Kudus, Kudus", to disambiguate it from the regency it's in, which is also called Kudus. My understanding from WP:ID-NAME is that "Kudus, Kudus" is the appropriate way to title the town. Similar to Demak, Demak and others. Example external pages discussing Kudus: [20] (you can get the idea of the article using Google Translate). HaEr48 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most cities of over 90,000+ people (and many much smaller) have articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND as it is a census district: "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." It seems to have some interesting features, looking on Google maps street view. Is Menara Kudus Mosque in the city of Kudus? Also interesting is that Google translator translates this locality as "Holy City" and the regency of Kudus as "Holy District." I get the impression that much more can be said. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Holy City" thing is probably a mistranslation. "Kudus" can also mean "holy" in Indonesian, although that meaning is slightly archaic (the more commonly used word is "wikt:suci"). It is named that way because it used to be a centre of Islamic scholarship in the 16th-17th century (which also explains the famous mosque you mentioned), and is still famed today for that aspect of its history. HaEr48 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the article in the Indonesian language Wikipedia: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kota,_Kudus? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I'm surprised that it called "Kota, Kudus" rather than "Kudus, Kudus" ("kota" means "city"). Looks like to distinguish from the regency, the town itself can also be called "Kota" or "Kota Kudus". Probably similar to how people use "the City" or "New York City" to distinguish the city from the state? HaEr48 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ID-wiki speaks of a specific kecamatan/subdistrict (named Kota) within the kabupaten/regency of Kudus. See for example this map. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not because I agree with the creator or the implication that encyclopediac 'inventions' suit the encyclopedia compared to what is found on the ground, when I travelled through Kudus during the new order era I never ever 'heard' or 'saw' anything that identified Kudus being 'Kudus Kudus' - Kota, yes.

Note -the Keep is conditional on adequate redirect to and from the main 'Kota, Kudus' traditional name, and expansion - the wikiproject indonesia has a very large amount of one source one line stubs (too many) - I do think the standard needs to be raised for surviving stubs should have more than one ref, and more than one line of text - if it was not created by a very good and dedicated editor I would say delete without hesitation due the close to meaningless one line one ref (or less) stubs on the project (modified) JarrahTree 01:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the most part, towns are considered to inherently be notable, and I don't see how this is any different. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND; nom seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malakia

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

This article relies entirely on primary sources to create a dictionary entry which is thus entirely original research. WP:NAD, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, and a host of other policies apply. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the "IP-hopper's" version appears to be encyclopaedic so we could revert back to that: here. Not entirely checked it through yet, though, so it might also not be worth keeping — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but where do we comment on this, here on this page or the talk page?WHEELER (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WHEELER: Here. Comments about this deletion discussion should only be made here. More info about this discussion and its format is available at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a Google search for <"Malakia" -wikipedia> and found out (on the very first page) that the Urban Dictionary defines it as "masturbation...slang word for semen...nonsense...an item considered worthless... a mistake, or (ironically and degradingly) a time-consuming non-productive action..."; this would seem to back this definition up; Strong's Concordance (of the Bible) defines it as "a disease or condition that weakens ("softens") the victim... an ailment that disables – 'a debilitating infirmity' causing the body to lose muscle" and another Bible site has a similar definition, and both of these appear to contradict the thesis at Malakia#Bible translations; it also happens to be a settlement on the island of Irakleio and a football team, Malakia FC. This and this do talk about effeminacy (which the "article" appears mostly to be about) but there seem to be a lot of possibilities out there... And still the "article" is entirely based on primary sources and possible synthesis of them at that. And actually the word as meaning effeminacy appears to be more closely related to Latin: here.

Either the article should be rewritten from secondary sources that actually say what the authors of this piece say—or that indeed say something else—or simply deleted. See also the ton of discussion about it on the talk page—and all the editors (except the dreaded "IP from St Petersburg", it would seem) appear to ignore the basic problem of a lack of third party sources. I write all this just in case anyone actually comes here from the article to have their say... to me it seems that someone has fixated on the "effeminacy/homosexuality" meaning and deliberately avoided discussing the other meanings and applications, except very briefly. Why? POV and OR and lack of V all at the same time! — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page as "Effeminancy"! The point of the article is about Effeminancy as a VICE. The other page on Wikipedia was about "being effeminate as a homosexual characteristic and is a good idea". That is not the original meaning of the term. There is NO secondary literature out there on this. I started this page for Classical/Biblical scholars to understand the meaning and use of the term in Classical antiquity---everybody else has it as a homosexual/sexual thing. The term "malakos" in the Greek just means soft and in classical meaning it had NO sexual connotations. It is in Aristotle's Virtues and Vices--"malakos" is a soft, weak, man. This is about understanding this term as it is used in the Bible to describe a particular vice in men. WHEELER (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WHEELER:Effeminacy is diabolically OR... I notice you removed the references to "malakos" from that article. Why? Perhaps you should have edited it to make the lack of sexual meaning clearer? Including modern commentaries, of course, which is precisely what I meant about your article (under discussion) not containing any WP:SECONDARY. That said, the ancients are secondary, I guess; we just need modern commentary as well to back up the claims and observations in the piece. Perhaps we should merge these two articles together again and go from there? — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I notice the vast majority of the edits after yours are either by IPs or now-blocked editors... It was moved way back when to "Malakia (effeminacy)" then to simply "Malakia". No one else that I can see in the history would be much interested in discussing the fate of this article as far as I can tell. OTOH, those editing Effeminacy might be interested, especially if we do consider merging. Therefore, pinging the most apparently relevant editors there, if they are interested: @Florian Blaschke:, @Flyer22 Reborn:, @Peripitus:, @Hyacinth:. (BTW, I do not mean this as canvassing, rather as trying to get interested parties involved to achieve a broader consensus. I have no idea what these other editors' opinions might be.) — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sin is a pretty common concept in European thought, one that will come up in discussions of European concepts of gender and strength/weakness. Hyacinth (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC) See: Kynodesme. 21:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm responding to the ping by Iadmc. Hmm, looking at this article, I'm not sure what to think, but, per WP:Primary sources, which is a policy (not simply a guideline), our articles should mainly be supported by secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. Having an article based solely or primarily on primary sources can call into question the WP:Notability of the topic and can make it easy for WP:Original research to dominate the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Iadmic leave things alone. Do NOT merge the two articles together. This is not "original research" meaning that making new conclusions not accepted/ordained by modern academia. What is in this article is about the continuity with Classical thought and Catholic morality. The First article does not address that. This article is purely a research aid. Leave it alone. I worked hard at this. This is why I hate wikipedia. People who have nothing else on their time and hands and go around and cause controversy. I actually did research, complete and whole to cover a topic important for Catholic ethics courses and biblical research. St. Thomas Aquinas's quote in this is perfect Secondary to back up what is meant in the classical quotes. Please leave this alone. This is why I no longer edit at Wikipedia. Endless arguments over nothing.WHEELER (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @WHEELER: I'm sorry but you misunderstand my use of the term "original research": you are using it in its modern academia meaning, I am using it in its Wikipedia meaning. Please see Wikipedia:No original research which works alongside Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These are the three Core content policies upon which Wikipedia is based. Your work is indeed excellent and well-researched but belongs on another website altogether since it is your original research. The main points (sourced from WP:RSs) can be written into Effeminacy to give it a more balanced approach to the subject. As the situation stands we also have a content fork. Please read the policies and the guideline I have linked to the better understand my meaning. Thank you — Iadmc ♫^talk 22:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty blender

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

No real content. The words "beauty" and "blender", when used together, don't need to have an article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely unconvincing, simply a mere guide listing. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Article lacks independent reliable sources. Beautyblender is actually the name of a brand of makeup sponges. Can't see a need for this article. CBS527^Talk 02:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adds no relevant information. WP is not a product list. DrStrauss talk 12:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CKTT-FM

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

Delete. This is a long-defunct tourist information radio station, which is a class of radio station that WP:NMEDIA deprecates as not getting an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists — but the station is the subject of no coverage about it in media to get it over WP:GNG. The only "sources" here are CRTC decisions for the initial license approval, and the general exemption order (not specifically mentioning this station) that released this class of stations from actually having to have licenses at all anymore — but the problem is that while this station is defunct, we can't source when or why it went defunct in the absence of reliable source coverage about it. CRTC documents are helpful sources to start an article with — they get you things like ERP, HAAT, regulatory violations, etc. — but they can't be an article's only possible sources if the station otherwise fails GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"delete' for the good reasons stated above.198.58.162.176 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's no presumption of notability for tourist information stations, licensed or not, and it seems unlikely that CKTT-FM will ever attain the coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, much less to verify whether it is still operating. (Incidentally, there was a numbered company that tried to buy the station to essentially replace a tourist information station with a religious station, but their plans were rejected by the CRTC in 2006. Had CKTT-FM been allowed to make this format change, it may well have eventually attained notability, but since it never happened I don't think it's enough to get CKTT over the notability hump.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by graduates in natural sciences and engineering

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

Non-notable list created by Muzithebunny, who was blocked as a sock puppet of Massyparcer. With other editors, CSD G5 does not apply. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. Content is difficult to verify. Ajf773 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Marcus

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

Contested PROD. No real claim to notability per WP:CREATIVE ; there is no significant coverage of the person and almost all sources are primary. The claim that he is the youngest Filipino American to start a nonprofit has no independent sourcing, and it is a doubtful claim to notability anyway. I believe it is simply too soon for an article - if and when he becomes notable somebody can write an article about him, but not yet. bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 21:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough coverage of Marcus to justify the article. I have to admit I am not 100% convinced his father, being executive director of the Hawaii State Ethics Comission is on the notable level, but I am leaning far enough yes that I will not pursue the issue further.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "He is the youngest Filipino-American to successfully start a nonprofit" - erm, what? No notability established, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Internet access from smartphones

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

Non-notable list created by Muzithebunny, who was blocked as a sock puppet of Massyparcer. With other editors, CSD G5 does not apply. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. Content is difficult to verify. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN. Also a case of WP:NOTMIRROR as the entire article is copied and pasted from one source Spiderone 11:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mitwali

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Am I missing something here? The Soccerway link indicates he played in the Indonesian Super League which is listed at WP:FPL. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY with the Indonesian and Jordanian appearances. Nfitz (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player has made appearances in a fully professional league which meets the notability criteria to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 05:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InkMonstarr

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs and barely any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to notability is a relatively minor rap beef, which would indicate this is a WP:1E situation. No charted singles on Billboard. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo Oshin

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

What's listed as a career is a mere 1 film apparently and all the sources here are clear announcements, mentions, profiles and all similar, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are not policy and have never single-handedly controlled our articles, WP:NOT would apply in this case because we're not IMDb and there's enough suggesting a misuse of an IMDb-esque page. In fact, WP:GNG itself says we need significant major independent news that is independent of the subject, the sources are clear interviews, republished words, etc. Longtime existing article with still nothing in independent notability and substance, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone; nothing to suggest her career is in fact significant; searches simply found mere announcements and mentions, including entertainment listings. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article simply hasn't been discussed in significant detail. Moreover, she fails WP:NACTOR. She has only starred in a few films, most of which are not notable. The notability of the Omo Elemosho film she starred in can be brought into question, since the film fails 4 of the 5 criterion of WP:NFO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm very confused by this AfD because Bimbo Oshin has been one of the top Yoruba actresses for more than 20 years now. She has acted and had lead roles in dozens of movies. Of course a web search returns thousands of results, but just to focus on interviews published by mainstream Nigerian newspapers: [21], [22]. If I'm missing something, tell me. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"has acted and had lead roles in dozens of movies" yet the article lists she's only had 1 work, which instantly unconvinces WP:ENTERTAINER, our applicable standards for actors. Also, to examine your sources, the first one is a clearly labeled interview and her own published words consisting the article itself, the second is simply an entertainment column, not substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously passes WP:GNG. The article is referenced with notable News Outlets, which are reliable sources, discussing her in significant details. Also a quick search (web, News) shows a gazillion sources discussing her all over. This AFD is pretty much pointless to me.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I found in those links were simply entertainment blogs such as "7 Things You Should Know About Her", "Meet Bimbo and her husband", "Interview with Bimbo", "Bimbo celebrating her daughter's birthday", "An interview with Bimbo", etc. None of that satisfies our standards as it's simply trivial entertainment columns, not substance; including columns anything can author and even by her own request. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much blogs, I saw websites of the likes of The Punch, Pulse Nigeria, Information Nigeria, Global News Nigeria, NET etc. All of these are websites of top Magazines and Newspapers in Nigeria, can you kindly explain how they don't "satisfy our standards"?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and that is quite sufficient to have an article. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states itself, however, that we need major independent significant news, but the ones offered or existing so far are simply entertainment columns, not the substance we need in notability, and she's also not satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER given she's only had 1 film so far. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I initially didn't want to vote in this AFD, and consequently deleted my earlier comments, mainly because I misjudged the identity of the nominator but I couldn't just hold back not commenting on the delete votes. Firstly, she has not acted in few films, she has acted in a lot of Yoruba films. I remember seeing some of her movies while growing up, immediately I saw her face after Googling her, with the name also ringing a bell, I knew she would definitely be clearly notable because she was a big deal then, so I can understand why anyone familiar with Yoruba culture will be displeased with this AFD. Yoruba films are one of the most undocumented, especially before 2000s, but am glad all that is changing now. Internet penetration is on the increase in all aspect of Nigerian culture. Even at that, there is still sufficient information on the internet that gives a clear claim for notability. If you think Omo Elemosho isn't notable for WP, then you should go nominate it, this AFD isn't really about Omo Elemosho, even if she didn't act in the film, she will still be very notable, the film isn't her claim to notability. Leaving aside GNG, and approaching other criteria in GNGACTOR, she was nominated for Yoruba Movie Awards, the main reason why someone as notable as she is doesn't have a train of awards is that the award culture is a new thing in Nigerian film industry, infact the oldest existing notable awarding body started in 2005, and there is no category for Nigerian language based films alone, so indigenous films have to compete with English films for nomination. Darreg (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per review of existing sources, she passes GNG. — Sam Sailor 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: You claim she has acted in "a lot of Yoruba films", yet the article only list one. Why don't you expand the filmography section to support your statement? You can't make a statement and not validate it. I don't know what sources you're looking at online, but my google search of her only brought up newspaper interviews, which do not establish notability per WP:GNG. This, this, and this are interview sources which are primary sources, not secondary. Sources that are not independent of the subject are considered primary sources, not secondary sources. The Global News source looks reliable, but the article is about her eviction from Dolphin Estate. GNG states that sources do not have to be available online or written in English. If there are reliable independent Yoruba articles discussing her in detail, they will need to be included in the article. Reliable sources in print media will also need to be included in the article. The subject may be notable, but the current sources online doesn't show that. For everyone saying keep, please cite the sources you believe are notable. You can either list them here or cite them in the article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia is very clear about establishing notability. The criteria is Independent reliable sources. Be aware that per WP:INDEPENDENT, "Secondary does not mean independent, and primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject". A non-independent source are things like press releases, subject's blog posts, personal websites etc. An interview conducted by a reliable media house is definitely an independent source. Most of the information in biography sources are based on what the subjects disclose anyway, so? Also note that there're lots of other coverages outside interviews, there are lots of sources (can be found in the link i gave earlier) talking about her birthdays, anniversaries, her family etc. Clearly demonstrates notability.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace Going by your logic, because only 2% of Nollywood films are on Wikipedia, that automatically implies that only 2% of Nollywood films are notable for Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure less than 1% of strictly Yoruba language films are on Wiki but does that really mean that only less than 1% of Yoruba films are notable? I disagree! Darreg (talk) 07:43, 11 :::February 2017 (UTC)

@Darreg: I don't understand how you derived your statement. Where in my reply did I say that if "only 2% of Nollywood films are on Wikipedia, that automatically implies that only 2% of Nollywood films are notable for Wikipedia"? Please explain to me where you're getting these figures from. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for misinterpretation of your words. But concerning my figures, I will explain how I arrived at them. It is documented in the Cinema of Nigeria article that as at 2010, there have been a total of 400,000 Nollywood films. Note that I said 2010 and the number is likely to be close to a million 7 years later. I tried to get a more recent total was wasn't successful. Today, the number of Nigerian films on WP is about 200, I got this number from the parent Category:Nigeria films. Do the maths, 200 is less than 2% of 400k, it's actually 0.05%. Secondly, today, there are only 23 film articles that Yoruba was spoken in on Wikipedia. Note that some of these 23 film articles have English as a first language. The only way my second statistic (1%) is going to be wrong is if you will tell me that the total number of Yoruba films ever produced since the beginning of time is less than 2300, this figure is highly unlikely for anyone familiar with the industry. I don't want to derail this AFD, so let's just end the discussion here or continue on my talkpage. Once again, I apologize for fixing words into my understanding of your thoughts and labeling it as yours. Darreg (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "interview conducted by a reliable media house" is not independent because WP:GNG itself says the contents must be independent of the subject and an interview is not, especially not when it largely takes the entire article only. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. while there's no consensus on interviews yet, a media interview generally passes WP:Independent to me. If a reliable media house finds a subject important enough to post an interview, without her being affiliated to the media house, the subject definitely demonstrates notability. It is quite different from the subject writing about herself in the press or blog - that definitely is not Independent. However, when a reliable source writes based on information provided by her on her personal websites, it is still a primary source, but it is now very much independent of the subject. But it's really pointless debating this anyway. The result of the AFD is pretty much decided already.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:RS is the one applying here; as for the AfD, see the page you suggest above, "without undue attention to the subject's own views....protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit -- Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" and our policies have never stated "If a newspaper interviewed her, she must be significant for an article here" because our policies are never controlled by such interest-based matters. The Keep votes still haven't suggested how we keep this in policy-based since WP:BaSIC and WP:GNG have never been made to Policy. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 11:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside passing GNG, the subject has been nominated in a few notable award ceremonies including the Yoruba Movie Awards and ZAFAA African Film Academy Awards. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 01:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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