WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2016 DECEMBER 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete ( G5). Huon ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

World-1 International

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, just to timetables/results of fights. Detailed text is unsupported by any citations. Nothing notable - purely a promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki ( talk) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (ZOOM) 22:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep The article needs drastic improvement but AFD is not cleanup. This team have appeared on iPPV in the USA (Evolve 23) and held championships in the Dragon Gate promotion. The nomination is faulty - there's no evidence whatsoever this article is "purely promotional". Mass AFD-ing using copy-and-pasted rationale is not desirable. 88.145.196.147 ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Seven Sport. Redirect target is somewhat arbitrarily picked; any change of the target and copying of material can be done at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Saturday Arvo Football

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

While there have obviously been AFL games broadcast on a Saturday, its not clear why it needs its own article. Minimal referencing but nothing that couldn't really be included in other articles such as Seven Sport or Australian Football League#Television, and even perhaps listed at the (itself questionable) List of Australian Football League television shows. I think the broadcasting of the game is notable, but I don't see why the Saturday afternoon telecast is so much more notable than others to warrant its own article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Seven Sport or equivalent, and the station's AFL broadcasts can be summarised there. MasterMind5991 ( talk) 10:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect / merge up to either/or its parent broadcaster / its list of football code programmes. The sport and the matches are notable but not this particular programme in itself. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

2016 Gisborne Blackout

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

Unsourced and no indication of WP:Notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. noq ( talk) 22:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Strong delete. Non-notable event and WP:NOTNEWS. Article also lacks any sources. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Difficult to see how this could meet general notability requirements. Schwede 66 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Euroleague Basketball. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Euroleague Basketball Manager

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Euroleague Basketball. Well, we can confirm it existed, even if it's just press releases [2] [3] so worth mentioning in brief in the parent article as a search term. Otherwise, yes, clearly lacking in secondary sourcing for its own article. If—according to the page's history—this game had some role in Euroleague's marketing history, we would need reliable, secondary sources to say so. czar 06:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going to go ahead and close this early, per WP:SNOW. As noted below, OUTCOMES states ""Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography)." Nowhere do we see that school districts lose notability if there are no high schools, as claimed. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Gravenstein Union School District

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

a school district with no high schools is just as nonnotable as a middle or elementery school. delete per guidelines on elementary/middle school articles on wp: must have notability beyond simply existing. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 22:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - An elementary school district is a geographic entity much like a city, town, or county. In California school districts are separate from city and county governments and tax residents like any other local government. As per Common outcomes the common outcome is to keep a school district article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts states: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography)." WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep per WhisperToMe; we keep school district articles as a result of our gazetteer function as described in WP:NGEO, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#School districts.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - per all of the above arguements. John from Idegon ( talk) 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Simonini Racing

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

Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Rob van vee 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - If you felt the article needed expanding all you had to do was start a discussion on the talk page, not nominate it for deletion, as it says at WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." But since you have done so I have expanded the article, added more refs and shown engine applications for notability. Since it now meets the reason you wanted fixed, you can now withdraw the nomination. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. The article is supported by citations from a reliable source - a directory listing is typical of the kind of source which demonstrates notability. Google is full of it, there are news items etc. about it. It is clear that this article needs expanding, not deleting. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep They're evidently notable enough to list them in the relevant trade directories. Also, what's the intention for Category:Simonini aircraft engines and its children? Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep as per the above. Thanks to @Ahunt for improvements. Jan olieslagers ( talk) 11:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Withdrawing AFD (Hope that is how it's done) Reading the article again I realise my mistake in tagging it for deletion. My apologies for any inconvenience. Rob van vee 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion, but the result seems clear. I'll call this one a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Clean Value Plastics

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

Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject Rob van vee 19:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy ( reactions) 14:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy ( reactions) 14:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. shoy ( reactions) 14:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm not an expert in German, but the few Google news mentions that I could find didn't look like they met WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy ( reactions) 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Chuck Lofgren

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

Non-notable former minor league player. Sources are only routine coverage. Wizardman 17:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for minor league players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete subject fails GNG and BASE/N. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to X-Faktor (Hungarian TV series). Redirecting this without re-listing: this was not intended to be a deletion discussion by the nom and shouldn't have been brought to AfD. ( non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Barbara Opitz

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

Redirect to X-Faktor (Hungarian TV series) a case of WP:BLP1E not yet ready for a stand alone article. GSS ( talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 17:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 17:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to X-Faktor (Hungarian TV series) - Looking at the huwiki article doesn't find any more sources, so there probably aren't many more out there. Seems to be notable as a contestant on the show, rather than independently so. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 01:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep as another week has formed nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Bobbi Shaw

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

Delete: Sorry but she is NOT a notable actress. Quis separabit? 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR because of major roles in many notable films. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 12:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - she was an important part of the AIP stock company in the 60s Dutchy85 ( talk) 14:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh?
what I've been doing} 17:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly insufficiant sources. Her multiple roles are not at the level of significant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I have added some extra information and references to highlight her notability Dutchy85 ( talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes NACTOR with multiple role. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Running through a WP:BEFORE search, particularly in books, there appear to be several sources which gives further weight to the arguments that WP:NACTOR applies here and the sourcing problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Mkdw ^talk 06:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Mkdw ^talk 06:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

MV Lady Mary Joy 3

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a primary source, and a database that lists all ships in the world. I propose a redirect to Aleson Shipping Lines. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 07:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I withdraw this nomination. An incident that generated coverage of the ship has been added to the article. Since someone else has supported deletion, according to WP:WDAFD I cannot close this myself, but I don't believe anybody else will support deletion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 09:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Ramaksoud2000, kindly check your talk page and please see this article thoroughly. It has sources on databases that lists allships in the world. Bumbl_loid 07:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on my talkpage to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 07:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect. No evidence that this vessel has any inherent notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Give me time to edit this article. Adding more words and news articke related to MV Lady Mary Joy 3 can help. Give me at least 30 minutes. Bumbl_loid 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New additions to the article was done, hoping to help the article not to be deleted. Bumbl_loid 09:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources added by the user above. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 11:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment - a ship tracking site, the owners own web-site and peripheral mentions as the ship repatriating illegal immigrants does NOT amount to notability. If that were so, pretty well every ship on the oceans of the world would quality. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - the ship exists, reliable sources prove the fact. Article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots ( talk) 12:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep per deletion nominator's withdrawal and per judgments of Mjroots and others. -- do ncr am 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved, expanded and sourced since nomination and the sources as well as the NACTOR side of things hasn't been refuted so I'm assuming the nom's happy with the article expansion/improvements, Anyway consensus is to keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Karen Fishwick

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

It's quite clear this is only planned to exist like an IMDb listing hence WP:NOT applies especially considering the fact this is simply a trivial and unconvincing, hence nothing for Actors Notability either. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR with only local productions to her credit. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep How do you know what is planned? Not disuputing it could do with improvement. PatGallacher ( talk) 12:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. Arguably her most well known role is the one in Our Ladies of Perpetual Succour, however I found enough reviews for her work in places like the Scotsman and Telegraph to justify her passing NACTOR as a whole. The article can still use expansion, but that's something that can be worked on over time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Multiple reviews for her performances, passes NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 01:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Clouds are Pillows for the Moon (musical)

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

Non-notable, sources are not reliable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Not Notable. Hasn't even had a professional production, as far as I can google. Kudos to the creators for what is no doubt an important show for them, but it doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. nerdgoonrant ( talk) 06:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is WP:TOOSOON. It sounds like there may be better sources in non-english-language publications (which is fine; for english-language wikipedia, we only require that the text of the article be in English, it's perfectly acceptable for sources to be in other languages).

For now, there's already a Draft:Ramzi Maqdisi being worked on, and my suggestion would be to continue to work on it there. A quick look at Draft:Ramzi Maqdisi indicates it's not going well so far. To those working on the draft, please note that we're not looking for more sources, we're looking for better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Ramzi Maqdisi

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

None of the references provided in this article actually discuss the subject. I have asked the creator of the article to address this, but so far the request has been ignored. I have looked at the Catalan version of the article, but though it has many more references, none of them appear to be any better than those already provided here: they include the mentions of the subject as an entrant in various film competitions, directory listings, web sites "articles" with no named author (likely not reliable or independent), etc. I do not see enough in either version of the article to make a viable notability argument. KDS4444 ( talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Actor/filmmaker who has had minor roles in The Attack, Omar, and Love, Theft and Other Entanglements, a few stage productions, and has made a handful of short films as director and/or cinematographer, but none of it adds up to WP:NACTOR/ WP:FILMMAKER. There's a general lack of sources - even when doing searches on the alternative transliteration "Ramzi Makdessi" - meaning WP:BASIC is not yet met. — Sam Sailor 11:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Sam KDS4444 hello again, I will defend my arguments in Spanish because I do think this Palestinian is not such a trivial person in my country either in all Europe, but firts, I would like to ask you to review the references again please in order to update your thoughts. En primer lugar, medir la notabilidad de un actor por el nombre con apellidos que tenga como personaje es totalmente absurdo. Desde el cine de Jean-Luc Godard hasta el cine de Lars von Trier son conocidos por su experimentación en su narrativa cinematográfica. Por la cual cosa, el argumento de que ha interpretado papeles pequeños, es decir sin ser el protagonista, en películas importantes según la perspectiva más hollywoodiense, no supone que sus papeles no sean importantes. ^[1] ^[2] además de que representa las producciones durante la entrega de premios importantes. La entrada de este actor y director, además, no se centra en su trayectoria como actor en películas "importantes" desde un punto de vista difícil de medir, se centra en toda una carrera profesional en el teatro, la interpretación y la dirección de cinem: su primer cortometraje de ficción ha ganado el premio del jurado al mejor cortometraje en el 2015 ^[3] ^[4]. Vuelvo a reiterar que, la notabilidad no se puede medir exclusivamente bajo parámetros de magnitud, se debe medir por el impacto que despiertan delante de difilcultades extremas, y vivir bajo los efectos de una ocupación en este caso, merece todo el respeto de la comunidad de wikipedia para no ser triviales en el momento de admitir o no una entrada. No es que sea demasiado pronto, es que parece que aunque en canales muy importantes como Aljazeera se hagan eco de este cienasta, no cuente ahora mismo porque nos hemos centrado en sus interpretaciones en peliculas de poca magnitud ^[5]. Todas estas referencias están en la página, y hay más, y voy a continuar trabajando en ello. Pero esta página debe analizarse en su conjunto, y no en las impresiones y opiniones de alguno de nosotros. Parauleira ( talk) 08:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Translation by KDS4444:In the first place, measuring an actor's notability by the names that he has as a character is totally absurd. The cinema of Jean-Luc Godard to the cinema of Lars von Trier are known for their experimentation in film narrative. In this case, the argument that he has played small roles, that is to say without being the protagonist, in important films according to the most Hollywood perspective, does not mean that his roles are not important. in addition to representing the productions during the receipt of important prizes. The entry of this actor and director, moreover, does not focus on his trajectory as an actor in "important" films from a difficult to measure point of view, focuses on a whole career in theater, theater interpretation and direction: His first short film has won the Jury Prize for Best Short Film in 2015. I would like to reiterate that, notability can not be measured exclusively by parameters of magnitude, it must be measured by the impact they have in the face of extreme difficulties, and living under the effects of an occupation in this case deserves all the respect of the community of Wikipedia so as not to be trivial at the time of admitting or not admitting an article. It is not that it is too soon, it seems that even very important channels like Aljazeera echo this film maker, do not count right now because we have focused on their performances in movies of small magnitude. All these references are on the page, and there are more, and I will continue to work on it. But this page should be analyzed as a whole, and not in the impressions and opinions of any of us [translator note: I used Google Translate for most of this, with a few corrections of my own, though something gets lost in the last sentence or two that I could not distill]

Response in English and Spanish English: While I understand and accept your desire to have an article on this person because of his potential to have an impact on the world, the English Wikipedia requires that its articles be supported by the existing evidence of having had impact, not on what anyone thinks the impact will be in the future. Evidence of potential notability is not considered evidence of actual notability, and this is part of why I nominated this article for deletion. Spanish: Aunque entiendo y acepto su deseo de tener un artículo sobre esta persona debido a su potencial para tener un impacto en el mundo, la Wikipedia en inglés requiere que sus artículos sean apoyados por pruebas existentes de haber tenido impacto, no en lo que alguien piensa el impacto sera en el futuro. Evidencia de notabilidad potencial no se considera evidencia de notabilidad real, y esto es parte de por qué he propuesto este artículo para la eliminación. KDS4444 ( talk) 00:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Response in Spanish KDS4444: Hola, si sigues la historia de la conversación desde la creación del artículo y desde tu propuesta para eliminar la página, verás que en un principio pediste su eliminación por la falta de referencias. Propusiste la página para ser eliminada mientras estaba editándola: es verdad que no puse la etiqueta de edición larga pero si miramos el historial está claro que hay una diferencia de media hora. Por otro lado y siguiendo las guías de edición WP:FILMMAKER y proporcionadas las nuevas referencias que encontraréis aquí Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi no creo que se sostenga mucho el argumento de la notabilidad. Parauleira ( talk) 11:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Unfortunately, it look like the case of WP:TOSOON. I've looked thru the references and tried to search for him. He had minor roles, with no significant reviews of his acting. Notability is not inherited, so being an actor in notable films does not make one a notable person by itself. Also, the award he received is from some private foundation, which is not quite notable by itself. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. Un actor i director que ha actuat en una pel·lícula nominada a un Oscar a la millor pel·lícula de parla no anglesa Omar (film) és prou notable com per tenir una entrada a Wikipedia i no és WP:TOSOON perquè tenir impacte no es pot mesurar pel temps. Un director que guanya un premi del públic en la seva primera obra de ficció Solomon's Stone (film)^[6], encara que el premi pertanyi a una fundació privada, mereix una entrada a Wikipedia. Un actor que representa en el Festival de Cine de San Sebastián i els mitjans de comunicació la pel·lícula The Attack (film) mereix una entrada a Wikipedia ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13]. Las referències apleguen mitjans de comunicació massius de grans grups de comunicació internacionals, com ara el grup PRISA i Alarabiya. Un cineasta que s'estudia a prestigioses universitats, com la Universitat de Barcelona en dos màsters ^[14] ^[15], mereix una entrada a Wikipedia. Un actor que protagonitza una obra com ara Martin Luther King Jr^[16] i que forma part d'una investigació de teatre experimental publicada ^[17], mereix una entrada a Wikipedia i és totalment una persona important en el món de l'art. Per aquests motius seria veritablement lamentable que l'entrada d'aquest actor i director de cinema i teatre palestí no tingués una entrada a Wikipedia. Vikiub ( talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

References

Response Being in a film nominated for a major award does not usually confer notability— winning that award confers notability; winning an (so-far) non-notable audience award doesn't usually confer notability— if that award becomes notable, it might confer notability; teaching at a prestigious university does not usually confer notability— having an appointed chair at that university or being chair of a department there might confer notability. And none of these things is as convincing as evidence of having been the non-trivial subject of multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Yes? KDS4444 ( talk) 18:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

PLEASE check Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi for new references provided. Parauleira ( talk) 20:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply
May need polyglot assistance. This BLP is about a person named Ramzi Maqdisi, now at WP:Articles for deletion/Ramzi Maqdisi, who is of Palestinian origin born in Jerusalem and thus also goes by his name in Arabic (which I won't attempt to paste so as to avoid unintentional mangling), who was educated in Spain, [4] and has gotten at least some French-language [5] and English-language [6] name-drops for his film-work. I don't seen sufficient depth of english-language sources to satisfy the WP:GOLDENRULE, but I suspect there might be considerably more WP:NONENGLISH press coverage in arabic/spanish/catalan/lebanese/french/etc, since those are the places where his films were made and/or funded. I also suspect that googling for the english-name 'Ramzi Maqdisi' will not turn up as many hits as googling for the arabic name. Can somebody with more multilingual facility than myself, please take a look, to see if such arabic/spanish/etc RS can be found? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

What I did find, in case it helps anybody.... The most well-sourced-in-english-sources film seems to be the short film Draft:Solomon's_Stone_(film) (not to be confused with Solomon's Stone the novel), see pdf page#13 here. [7] It was the pre-act at the Gene Siskel Film Center at a film festival this past April, [8] three years later, which seems noteworthy to my eyeballs, but I know bupkis about short films in Arabic! Because it was a film where Maqdisi was the screenplay author, the director, and the lead actor (of only two credited), sources which are specifically about the film MIGHT also count towards Maqdisi's wikipedia notability, more than would usually be the case with a film where the proverbial cast of thousands participated; I'm not sure what wikipedia policy has to say on such matters. Here is the IMDB entry, which I know does not count towards WP:RS and WP:GNG, but has a partial filmography. [9] In addition to his fiction, he has been publicly political about Israel, as in this probably-non-RS petition. [10] He also was the filmmaker of a video about disabled students in Palestine, funded by Maqdisi's own Quds Art Films but then broadcast on Al Jazeera Media Network. [11] He was mentioned a couple times (name and photo and a quote about his interpretation of his character's backstory) in this ebook, not sure if it counts as WP:RS. [12] His work won the Twin Cities Arab Film Festival award, [13] dunno if that really counts towards notability, [14] and as part of that the Film Society of Minneapolis-St. Paul published a link to a brief blurb on the director Maqdisi. [15] "He studied theater at the University of Barcelona and filmmaking at the Catalonia Filmmaking Studies Centre ( same?)." [16] His new one-hour-long documentary will be at Queens World Film Festival ( same?) in March 2017, as well. [17] Those turned up in a quick search, but as I say, only for the english-version-of-his-name, and only really looking for english-language-cites. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. insufficient majorroles, so far in his career. I agree it's TOOSOON DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per DGG - he's no major roles, and a couple appearances are minor and/or redshirt (character) roles. The sourcing is especially poor - all blogs, self-created, or small film fests' pages. Bearian ( talk) 13:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I created Palestinian law, so I am not biased against his nationality. Bearian ( talk) 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I have modified placements of some statements within this AfD, as they were inappropriately placed. Content has not been edited. Nördic Nightfury 11:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Vellala Mudaliar

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

There is no such community called Vellala Mudaliar. Mudhaliar is merely a Title of various communities, mostly among Vellalars. There are many Sub groups add Mudhaliar along with their community name such as Arcot Mudhaliar etc.. but no community exists as Vellala Mudhaliar itself. Winnan Tirunallur ( talk) 19:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 18. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The subject is presumed notable as per WP:NOLYMPICS, which is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page. Furthermore, the article has received significant copy editing and the addition of sources after being nominated for deletion, which has significantly countered the nominator's rationale of the article being unreliable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Eugen Mühlberger

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

Completely unreliable article with an author unable to create correct articles and add proper sources. The Banner talk 13:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems to have legitimately set a world record. More info on corresponding German article, although both articles could use some beefing up. It's not surprising that there are few online sources, since he competed before the age of television. Very likely additional sources available in print, and especially in German. Recommend trout for nominator for confusing unnecessary commentary on author for actual WP:BEFORE. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
- Before your start trouting, read this: User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Draft:Eugen Mühlberger. The author knew that the article was dodgy but clearly did nothing serious. Why it was approved by AFC is a complete mystery to me. And you have added a source to his WW2 death, that does not back up the date of his death as given there. The Banner talk 14:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

For future reference, if you identify a typo, just fix the damned typo. Instead, you have apparently put literally 100 times the required effort into complaining about it.

I'm not a gigantic fan of approving AfC drafts with a single reference, but that doesn't have anything to do with the requirement to WP:BEFORE, a policy which you seriously need to take some time to review. Also, please note that notability is not dependent on article content. The standards for AfD are not the same as the standards for AfC. Part of the purpose of AfC is to help editors learn to create acceptable articles. The burden is on the author. This is explicitly not the case for AfD, where the burden is on the nominator (you) to establish that the subject is in fact not notable before nominating for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Before you start shouting, read the background here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fram. You can start roaring and shouting about WP:BEFORE but when you fail to do your own research, you better keep quiet. The Banner talk 15:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

And you try to blame me for not fixing a type, you in fact added a false source. That source is not saying that he was missing in action... The Banner talk 15:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I too have ANI on my watchlist, for some reason. What you seem to not understand, is that whether the author is literally a dog has nothing to do with whether the subject of an article is notable. Whether I have done "research" on the author is irrelevant, because the author is irrelevant. If you are going to nominate an article for deletion, you need to take the steps required in the deletion process. Checking ANI is not one of these steps.

I am not blaming you for missing a typo. I'm blaming you for complaining about it while not fixing it. No one is blaming you for researching articles you don't happen to nominate for deletion. I'm personally just blaming you for this one. And...apparently...inability to read a source, and probably doing even less research than I assumed you had done, because you didn't notice that the source for the circumstances of his death (which incidentally does say he was MIA), is the original source that was used to create the article. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

@ The Banner: the thing you said That source is not saying that he was missing in action. is wrong. See the reference. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(
Talk) 16:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The page only states Died: August 1, 1944 (Aged 41.337) in [unknown], Unknown, Soviet Union. Nothing about missing in action as you state in the article. The Banner talk 18:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Take a deep breath. Go outside for a smoke. Take a few sips of tea. Consider that you might have missed something that seems obvious to others. And then come back when you've figured it out. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Maybe you must starting to look what you have missed. Both sources added to Mühlberger died during the Second World War in August 1944 having been missed in action while fighting on the eastern front in the Soviet Union. do say nothing about being missing in action. The Banner talk 19:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I...you...you're serious right now aren't you? TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Please get familar with Scrolling. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(
Talk) 20:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep person meets WP:NOLYMPICS, article is reliable as I can't find any error that is not referenced. Article creator Sander.v.Ginkel ^(
Talk) 15:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

FYI, it's generally expected that you identify yourself as the author if you weigh in on a deletion discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for saying. Nobody told me in before.. But it make sense. I did it :). Will do it in future. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(
Talk) 16:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep and while I often concur with the nominator, Wikipedia has certain acceptances and this is a case where we can easily still improve the serious concerns, but it is notable for the applicable sports. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep person meets WP:NOLYMPICS, WP:NSPORTS. I added an additional source which ordinarily would be unnecessary, but goes on to confirm my contention in NSPORTS that all Olympians will have a history. Having dealt with him in the past and owing to the OP's persistent disability, I looked for the additional sources. Of course they are there if you look. I repeat WP:BEFORE. In particular to this OP, BEFORE should be mandatory before any AfDs are considered. Trackinfo ( talk) 00:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Top Gear (series 24)

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

Way to soon to have this stand-alone article. No series 24-specific information is being presented to our readers here, because barely anything has been announced by the producers. No air date , no episode descriptions or even a scheduled number. Nothing. The only information here is the fact the presenters will return which is already mentioned on the main article for this TV program. T v x1 21:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep it's been announced and confirmed that it will happen, there is already information on it regarding the series. What is the point in deleting this article when it will have to be remade sometime in the future? st170e^talk 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete changing my !vote per TVUPCOMING (thanks to AussieLegend below). I've tried to find some information regarding the individual episodes but I can't find any; it often reminds me of the secretive Apple conferences they hold every year. Delete the article or even put it into Draft because it'll be needed at some point in the future. st170e^talk 11:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete There simply isn't enough sourced content to justify existence of the article at this time. The content in the article doesn't even warrant a separate section at List of Top Gear episodes per WP:TVUPCOMING, which states "When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the article's lead, depending on when and what info is revealed." The only sourced content in the article refers to hosts, and this should be included in the lead of List of Top Gear episodes per WP:TVUPCOMING. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hootan Dolati

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG, nor it passes Politicians notability criteria. At most we can say that it's too soon for him to be an encyclopedic entry. Saff V. ( talk) 07:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The Persian-language Wikipedia article is very well developed. Using Google translate, from what I can make out, there do seem to be very good number of reliable sources about the article subject. Reliable sources do not have to be in English, here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

hi see w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی_برای_حذف/هوتن_دولتی-- جسورانه ( talk) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you. If I understand correctly, that is the Persian language article deletion discussion, where so far the consensus is unanimously to keep, is that not so? And that the editor there who attempted to have this article deleted has actually been blocked. Moreover, I see that the nominator here, Saff V., has been active in creating articles about Iranian regime military figures and has been previously warned about edit warring, so I do wonder if there's some politically motivated agenda to erase articles about opponents of the Iranian regime and if the nominator is not part of that. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Derakhshan This article was written by Hootandolati ( talk · contribs) This is an ads. [Ads Iranian].-- جسورانه ( talk) 16:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The SPI that was declined for lack of evidence? I don't see what that proves. As best I can tell, we appear to have a multi-faceted inter-Wiki campaign to remove articles about a notable anti-regime activist, and this Afd is part of it. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

So just to recap: 1) the editor who opened the Afd at the Persian wiki has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts 2) the Afd there was unanimously opposed and closed as keep for obvious notability 3) the SPI opened here by SPA User:111695 has been declined for a complete lack of evidence. The natural next step would be to see if User:111695 is another sock of the indef blocked Persian sockpuppeteer, but that's not a matter for here. As for the nominator here, who is an experienced editor, for now I leave it to his judgement to see what part he wishes to continue to play in all this. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I've asked the blocking admin at the Persian wiki, who does have an account here, and is in fact a Steward, to take a look. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: He does not pass our WP:GNG test. I also think it's WP:TOOSOON. -- Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep A Google search shows him covered in numerous documents and pages by governments and international organizations, as well as a few other websites. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 19:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Ramaksoud2000: and where are those sources deeply dealing with the subject? I mean, as you know, here's an encyclopedia and we don't rely on passing mentions. -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

They are all on the Persian language wiki article -- which according to your userpage is a language you are able to read. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Did I ping you?! Anyway, yes I can read persian and that's why I'm supporting the deletion. -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't need your permission to make a comment at Afd, regardless of whether you ping me or not. I restate that the reliable sources on Persian-language wiki article -- which was speedily kept at Afd -- constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, from what I can tell using Google Translate. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The sources are here, as linked at the top. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 19:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the google search results link Ramaksoud2000. But, could you please say which of those millions of results brought up by google are sources dealing with the source in depth and hence proving the notability? -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

And I just want to remind everyone that reliable sources need not be in the English language. The totality of the Farsi sources appear better than what we find in English, far as we can tell. There are quite a few strong ones at fa:هوتن_دولتی. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the cooperation but your misleading this Mhhossein-Ramaksoud2000 dialogue is really annoying and dubious. I would be thankful if you could avoid doing that and commenting elsewhere on this page. Btw, how can you verify that those sources are strong and deep? -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

US Embassy, UK Gov, Amnesty International, Amnesty USA, and other sources that I can't assess the reliability of at the moment all cover him in detail. There are other trivial mentions as well. Those are just the English language sources. I don't believe I will be able to convince you though. You appear to have a close connection to this topic. I will not be responding further because you are rudely telling another editor not to contribute. All views are welcome. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 19:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Ramaksoud2000. Yes, I daresay it's pretty clear to objective editors what's going on here. Please don't worry on my account. Now, as for reliable sources, in Farsi, yes I think I can thanks to the wonders of Google Translate. He is mentioned in the headlines of multiple articles such as here, here (the Voice of America], here. This appears to be an excellent list of abstracts of further articles. There's no shortage of coverage; this is just a sampling. Now, some of the multiple refs may be judged to be blogs rather than news media, but given the Iranian theocratic regime's control, we're unlikely to find coverage in state news organs. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) No, I welcome his views, but in its correct place. Jumping right into others dialogue is not respected. By those reliable sources, do you mean that virtual Embassy? Yes I think this is good but that virtual embassy and a source by an advocacy group are rarely considered reliable. Mhhossein ^talk 20:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: Besides the coverge issues, there are major concerns according to WP:BIO1E. He's here just for a single event and for nothing more. The article is certainly a WP:PSEUDO. -- Mhhossein ^talk 20:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete: WP:BIO1E WP:PSEUDO this also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hossein Derakhshan (2nd nomination) Because it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Derakhshan-- 111695 ( talk) 12:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

~~— 111695 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a blocked sockmaster.~~

- strikethrough !vote from banned sock puppet account. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep The coverage of his hunger strike is widespread enough in Farsi sources to justify keeping the article. I am not actually convinced that the Amnesty international mentions are enough, but the Farsi sources that I was able to get an inkling of from using google translate on the Farsi Wikipedia article show there is enough coverage to establish him as a notable figure. I am not convinced his role in founding the Green Peace affiliate in Iran is in any way notable, even though it is mentioned in the Farsi Wikipedia article on Green Peace. It would be nice if we could have someone who is not trying to overly boost the reputation of Dolati and has a good grasp of Farsi edit the article. The problem is that most readers of Farsi are going to have strong views on the politics of Iran one way or the other. I did my best to render the article in readable English, but I have to admit I am less than satisfied with the coverage of his pre-arrest activities even in the Farsi version. True, he would probably not be notable unless his role as a hunger striker had not made him an international cause celebre, but he was some sort of journalist before being arrested, and I would think a little more of substance could be said of this. Just to make things more confusing, the google translate I dealt with rendered his name as State Houten. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The reasons Shawn in Montreal, Ramaksoud & Lambert. Derakhshan ( talk) 07:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, none of them paid attention that the article should be deleted per WP:BIO1E and that the article is certainly a WP:PSEUDO.-- Mhhossein ^talk 17:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Derakhshan: Please declare that you're the article creator. -- Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. postdlf ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

List of countries by population in 1400

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

The world is listed as having a 233M population, but sources show estimates of 350M to 370M. China is listed as having a population of 233 people, India as 211 people, and the US as 198 people. That's all the content. The edit summaries in creating this give me pause about WP:AGF. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(
Talk to me)} 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as per WP:G3. Blatant hoax article. Author has a history of disruptive editing. Ajf773 ( talk) 07:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not seem to be a serious article. Even if it were the topic itself violates several WP policies. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 09:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete Fails WP:V, created by someone who looks like they're WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 05:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Crystal Huff

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

NN person whose sole claim to fame is that she chairs science fiction conventions. PROD contested on the ground of "Improved sourcing of article," but that seems to constitute nothing beyond "adding yet more obscure sources of unproven reliability that don't do much more than mention the subject's name." In any event, they certainly don't meet the GNG and are no improvement upon the primary sources and mere namedrops already cited in the article. Ravenswing 06:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Notability not asserted in article. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 09:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh?
what I've been doing} 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable; sources therein are in Finnish and Chinese, for cripes' sake. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: One wonders if they were added by way of pushing the "Hey, I bet folks will say 'Look, there are sources!' without so much as an attempt to run them through Google Translate" button. Ravenswing 00:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Can't we assume good faith? Whereas I can't speak for the editor who added it, Helsingin Sanomat is a) the newspaper in Finland, is b) supporting the simple statement for which it's used as a reference and c) talking about a Finnish project, where it makes some sort of sense to use a Finnish source. / Julle ( talk) 22:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment The title of the Finnish article was translated wrong. It says "Nerd who fell in love with Finland...", not "Finland is in love with a nerd..." I checked Google Translate and apparently the bad translation came from there, as usual. Suomeen = to/with Finland, and only as an object of the sentence. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 02:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete being the chair of a non-notable sci-fi convention is not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: We have an article about Readercon. I'm rather confident it would survive an AfD discussion. What makes it non-notable? / Julle ( talk) 22:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep She has also chaired Arisia and there is an article about that. Paradoox ( talk) 23:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'd question the definition of Helsingin Sanomat as an obscure source for a Finland-related (as, at the time, the co-chair of Worldcon 75 in Helsinki) subject. / Julle ( talk) 20:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep She seems significant in terms of the current Gamer-Gate atmosphere and her efforts to combat that and well as putting the World in Worldcon. Does that need to be more explicit in the article? Paradoox ( talk) 23:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: Not significant enough to be one of the several dozen figures named in the Gamergate controversy article, seemingly. And given that the Helsinki Worldcon will be the sixth non-US Worldcon in the last twelve years, even from a fannish standpoint it'd be hard to credit Huff with any great influence in internationalizing the fannish scene. But that being said, first off, since notability is not inherited, being associated with a notable subject does not make one notable. What does, in Huff's case, would be meeting the GNG: having received "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. That's the only standard of notability which applies in her case, and she fails that. Ravenswing 06:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 05:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Brandon Reynolds

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

Simply a PR business listing and, like anything, we have to consider the likeliness of paid advertising, what's here is simply not establishing genuine independent notability and substance and it's quite noticeable which sources are these are exact PR; searches are not finding anything of actual convincing and it's these cases that we apply WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - As per nom, seems to be purely promotional. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - Promotional page, vanity listing. reddogsix ( talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with ST's assessment on this one. Promotional article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Blatantly promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 01:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete although there are small mentions in some news items, this character is not independently notable apart from Sociabl. The do seem to be several criminals and officials that use the name Brandon Reynolds that compete for hist on Google search and news. So just merge the sourcable bits to Sociabl. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 03:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete not enough IRS, and looks like just way TOOSOON (suspect there will probably be an article here one day). Merge the Sociabl section over to Sociabl. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to The Sam Willows. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Chua

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

Google finds some information about him, but it appears to be from unreliable or vanity sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to The Sam Willows The subject is part of a band called The Sam Willows and is not independently notable other than that. I suggest a redirect here. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note This is one of the articles created by User:CO16. I believe the user doesn't really know about notability. I had redirected a few of the others and I had tried to explain, but I am not sure they understood. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 15:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Elena Levon

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

Non-Notable Actress with a few small roles as extras (she had one spoken line in How I met your Mother, etc), no actual acting role and does not meet notability requirements for WP:ENT or WP:GNG, Original Deletion Proposal Reverted and deleted without reason or justification by an IP address in New York, where Elena currently resides, so I am also concerned it violates WP:PROMOTION Elyeri ( talk) 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: utterly non-notable actress for all the reasons specified by nom. Quis separabit? 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Jason from nyc ( talk) 17:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete I ran a quick WP:BEFORE search and there are a handful of sources but in a few this individual is not the sole focus of the publication. I think there's a good possibility that this individual could become notable, especially in regards to their modelling career, but for the time being there isn't sufficient coverage for an article under WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 02:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Walmoo (Company)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are no in-depth sources in English and translations (Google Translate) of the references used for the page show they are press releases, brief announcements, or not about the company. CNMall41 ( talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Not adhere to Wiki Standards. References are not good to provide substance about this one. Light2021 ( talk) 18:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Law and Corpus Linguistics

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

Not sufficiently notable to justify an article - lacks useful content. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, as the saying goes, I'm not a lawyer but. This article is not specially well-written from a Wikipedian standpoint, but it is reasonably well cited, and contrary to nom's first statement, it looks pretty clear that the topic meets the 'multiple reliable sources' criterion of the GNG to achieve notability, I'd say fairly easily, with The Atlantic, The Yale Law Journal, and The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. The New York Times is correctly quoted, too, as citing a technical note on the matter. On nom's second point, that it lacks useful content, I don't recall that usefulness has ever been a notability criterion; if a topic is notable, it deserves an article, and if that's not very informative, it deserves editing. Actually, however, the article is clear and informative about the topic and its history, and it isn't hard to think of uses for the knowledge. I'd give it a Keep. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

This has been much improved since I nominated it. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete ( G5). Huon ( talk) 23:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Dia.Hearts

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki ( talk) 02:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete ( G5). Huon ( talk) 22:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Tribe Vanguard

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki ( talk) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete ( G5). Huon ( talk) 23:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Over Generation

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki ( talk) 02:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete ( G5). Huon ( talk) 23:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Renaissance (professional wrestling)

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, and most statements are unsupported by anything. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki ( talk) 02:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete ( G5). Huon ( talk) 23:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Iron Perms

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned for sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki ( talk) 01:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Looks like the group was only around for two months and achieved nothing notable in that time. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Independent Wrestling Federation alumni

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

Article does not demonstrate notability as per WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Individuals listed are not notable. Promotion only. Parkywiki ( talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related page. The main page for both these articles is also up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Wrestling Federation (Russia). Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete both. Original research, promotional and non notable topic for an article. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Independent Wrestling Federation alumni Mkdw ^talk 02:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Independent Wrestling Federation (Russia)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability as per WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Promotion only. Parkywiki ( talk) 01:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 01:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Magneto The Mall

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

Contested PROD at 5 days. Promotional unsourced article ripe with copyvio images from blocked creator. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 02:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Lack of significant coverage and article breaches WP:NOTPROMO. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete. This Article Cites no references whatsoever, suggesting that it doesnot satisfy WP:ORG as it is not a notable company. Also The article is not written from a Neutral point of view, and is clearly written by an insider of the company. The content features blatant Promotion of the company Violating WP:NOTPROMO and also WP:NPOV. It generally goes against everything Wikipedia is Not, violating WP:NOT. This article does not belong on Wikipedia. C. Harris ( talk) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as an advertisement. Borderline G11 material that I wouldn't object to someone speedying, but also don't mind the AfD running its course. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Mae Nak (TV series)

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

This television series fails WP:GNG, as tagged since August 2008. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as not providing any substantial content. There's already a more complete listing at Mae Nak Phra Khanong#In popular culture. No prejudice against creation of properly cited, fully fledged article of any of the specific TV adaptations, provided they satisfy the notability guideline. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Luxe (company)

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Sources in the article are unreliable or otherwise not independent. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - we keep articles about notable companies, even if the media is reporting them in trouble, and even if they are defunct. Passes GNG easily, just a start: [18] [19]. More easily found. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 14:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - Forbes and WSJ are reliable and independent sources. - The Magnificentist 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as looking into this, I see the Forbes is actually by a freelance journalist hence a quite common sight when a company wants to thinly veiled its involvements with the advertising-only; we all know that and it's something we've established quite clearly here at AfD, the other sources (regardless of publication or name) are still clear attempts at republishing the company's own words and it's still obvious because of the sheer consistency that only the company would care to show and it shows it because it's explicitly for advertising, hence at clients and investors, not an encyclopedia. WashingtonPost itself is a naturally looking business listing about it, including clear interviews and PR attempts. Guidelines still mean bithing, regardless of what one chooses, because WP:NOT was the first policy we started ever using. It's quite obvious that someone involved with the company started this so that's another damning contributing factor. When we no longer start considering our explicit policies of We're Not A Business Listing, we start damning ourselves simply because we cannot even choose to delete the simplest of things. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Not sure why it is being said that there are no independent sources here. Washington Post and Bloomberg are independent and have good reputation as sources. I agree however, that Forbes freelance articles can be questionable and are sometimes simply press releases. 45.72.152.96 ( talk) 00:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples below; additional sources are also available. Also, in my opinion, articles about notable companies are not all automatically business listings as some sort of peculiar default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

References

Forbes (this article is written by a Forbes staff writer, not a contributor)
The New York Times
The New York Times
Observer
Bloomberg News
Cnet
Business Insider
The Wall Street Journal
Chicago Tribune
Los Angeles Times

Keep - There are good WP:RS as per User:Northamerica1000. Bilbo Baggins ( talk) 07:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Tania Brishty

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

Does not meet WP:BIO all the sources bar one that is blocked by my anti virus come from one web site. MTNews24. IMDb notes one film for her. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete for now, may be become notable in future. But not the current state she does not pass WP:GNG. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR... Rameshnta909 ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Nom didn't examine the cited sources very closely. None is actually from MTNews24. Instead they are major Bangladeshi newspapers (e.g. Jaijaidin, Manob Kantha, Bhorer Kagoj, and Daily Inqilab). A cursory Google search found an additional eleven articles in English-language press. Searching by her Bengali-script name found even more. She has not been shown to meet WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR (possibly because Wikipedia has scant coverage of Bengali-language TV), but failure to meet additional criteria such as those doesn't prevent her from meeting WP:GNG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Meets GNG per sources found by Worldbruce. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Kudos to WorldBruce for finding sources.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 09:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete and Draft instead as based from her current career, this is still only local entertainment news, not something we consider actual substance, and since her largest number of works are "Unreleased", that alone says enough and the works she has released are still too trivial. Draft is suggested so improvements can be made. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion commenters complaining about what the lack of "notable" in the title means are incorrect. Most lists on Wikipedia are restricted to notable entries. This may be clarified on the article talk page or in a comment in the wikicode if there is confusion on this point, without including an inappropriate self-reference to WP guidelines in the title. See MOS:LIST#List naming. Further questions about scope or inclusion may be resolved on the talk page (so far unused here), with inclusion in the complementary Category:Residential buildings in India as a guide. postdlf ( talk) 13:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

List of residential buildings in India

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

This article needs to be retitled if it is to be a viable list. The population of india is around 1.3 billion.... TheLongTone ( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not so sure. WP:CSC allows us to manage potentially unwieldy lists and right now it is confined to bluelinked articles. I don't see why it doesn't meet WP:CLT. I'm also surprised that there is no residential sub-category in Category:Lists of buildings and structures by type. It's broadly recognized that this is a list that should not be exhaustive per CSC and any problems that might emerge in the future with overly long lists of non-notable Indian residential buildings can be solved via normal editing. Keep. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply
- For the record, I have just created Category:Lists of residential buildings. There's just three lists at present that I can find to populate it -- including this one -- but it seems an obvious sub-cat of Category:Lists of buildings and structures by type with room for growth. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  - There's List of American houses, most of which seems to be houses notable for their size or famous residents. Peter James ( talk) 20:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep. It is implicit that it is a list of notable ones. We don't put the qualifier "notable" into the title. -- do ncr am 14:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Implicit my Aunt Jemima. It is essential that clear criteria for inclusion are stated. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply

My point is that residential buildings can be notable for a variety of reasons. Buckingham Palace, Ronan Point, and Highpoint are all notable residential buuildings, but other than the fact that people have lived in them they have little in common. It's obvious that without inclusion criteria this list is potentially a random selection of things. TheLongTone ( talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is a list of notable residential buildings in the country. Passes WP:LISTN... Rameshnta909 ( talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with TheLongTone about inclusion criteria. Most of these are tall buildings, which could be a suitable criterion, but there's already List of tallest buildings in India, which includes the tallest. It looks like most of these are (or could be, assuming they are verifiable) included there, or in lists for the cities in which they are located; exceptions may be Trump Towers Pune (no height stated, fewer floors than others) and The Park (not a building, so shouldn't be in the list, although Trump Tower Mumbai, part of the development, could be added). As that list mentions the use (such as residential) of the building, a list limited to residential would be substantially a duplicate, and this title is too vague and there's no content worth merging. Peter James ( talk) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and potentially WP:NOTIINFO. While there is no harm in creating a list of (notable) residential buildings, WP:LISTCRITERIA would imply that any residential building in India could be included. For a country wtih 1 billion people this could be endless. Support deleting this article and splitting down into sub-articles more relevant to cities or states where articles are more likely to be encyclopedic. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Each state can be made into a separate section like they did in List of American houses... Rameshnta909 ( talk) 19:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

2013 Governor Generoso earthquake

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Low intensity (Moderate)
No injuries or deaths
Lack of coverage from the scientific community
Not listed on the NGDC's significant earthquake database
Fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT

No lasting effects
No depth of coverage

Essentially zero details on it.

There are destructive events in the Philippines, and we have articles on quite a few, but this is not one of them. This one also does not qualify to be on the list so redirecting is not an option. The USGS entry for the event tells us that it happened and that the computer generated (simulation) intensity was V (Moderate) and that the highest reported intensity from someone on the ground at that location was IV (Light) but nothing more. If there were damage, injuries, or deaths, related detail would be listed under the "impact" section:

M 5.6 - 7km E of Tibanbang, Philippines – United States Geological Survey

Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete A non-notable earthquake that caused no deaths, no injuries and no significant property damage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Vegas Golden Knights. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL carry the policy based arguments. No prejudice for recreation once enough content that can be supported by reliable sources becomes available for a standalone list. Mkdw ^talk 06:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Vegas Golden Knights general managers

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

The WP:PAGENAME uses the term "list" however, the team has had only one general manager. A list would require more than one. Meatsgains ( talk) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Redirect (to Vegas Golden Knights, see my 2nd comment) This should already be deleted solely on the grounds of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The proposed team doesnt even exist at this moment. So while the actual team may be notable (a glance at the main article indicates this at least), this list article does certainly not have any claim for existence. Per WP:LISTBIO we would need sources which discusses the list subjects as whole but this is not the case. This isnt even a list for the members of the team, it is a list for the "general managers". They have one manager and there is just no reason for such an obscure list for one person, especially since this list very likely wont get expanded for quite some time and even if it does it would then just become a 2 or 3 item list. This list article therefore doesnt really have any justification for existance and should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary ( talk) 12:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: The team certainly does exist, Dead Mary's assertion notwithstanding, but this "list" is badly premature. Barring disaster, it'll be a couple years at the absolute minimum for there to be as much as a second GM. Ravenswing 20:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Well they exist as entity but they are still in the process of being formed and plan to play their first games next year. :P Dead Mary ( talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ - Per my nomination statement. For it to be a list, there needs to be more than one GM to list. The page is WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply
- Please don't format subsequent comments as if they are additional !votes, as this can only cause confusion as to the quantity of support a proposal has; you've already made your deletion nomination. postdlf ( talk) 23:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Vegas Golden Knights. We'll need this eventually once there's more than one GM, and the article history will prove useful. Plus it's a plausible search term if someone doesn't know the franchise has only had one GM in its history. But it doesn't need its own article yet. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep We already do this for another team in the NHL and have done so for many years, it is part of a series of articles and thus shouldn't be deleted. A list of one is still a list. - DJSasso ( talk) 15:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Having similar articles on other teams is not an argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may be true true that in the future this article may be needed (in a couple of years) and it also may be true that technically a list with one entry is a "list", but in the present this article has basically 0 substance and is completely unwarranted. "List of managers of xyz" is not notable when there has been only one manager, we are not a directory. Especially since it is very likely it will stay for the next years this way. However, I think a redirect may indeed be more appropriate to keep the pages history, so the article /may/ be recreated in a couple of years. Dead Mary ( talk) 09:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep per DJSasso. Also keep in mind George McPhee is identified as the team's acting general manager in news articles, not as "who will be" the GM at a certain point. While he is currently barred from signing players and making trades until spring/early summer, he is hiring people and overseeing the scouting of professional and amateur leagues. -- Parkfly20 ( talk) 13:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect I'm not against this being kept but it does seem to be a little early. Deadman137 ( talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect If every other team has such an article as DJSasso says, then it makes sense to keep this article title in existence as a redirect. But until there's more than a couple of names on the list, it should just be a table on the team top page. Aspirex ( talk) 07:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Marco Noris

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

I cannot see anything herr to suggest that this person passes WP:ARTIST. References all effectively self-published, since tghey are from commercial galleries representing him. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete The content of the article is mostly taken from his own biography, and I see no indication of any independent critical assessment of his work that would satisfy WP:ARTIST Mduvekot ( talk) 21:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not meet criteria for notability. Netherzone ( talk) 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Talla 2XLC

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

Article contains original research and the references do not indicate significant notability. Tag for not enough references has not elicited any improvement in a year. Hakken ( talk) 16:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable music producer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Sensorium (band)

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a band, which doesn't actually meet any notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; a band must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 17:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete only sources I see on google are for a band in Israel (who also wouldn't meet the notability criteria) and a festival with the same name (unrelated) elsewhere. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Without WP:BURDEN being meet, the article has zero sources, even primary sources, and does not seem to make a credible claim to notability. This arguably could have been CSD; maybe their associated acts and album claim? In any case, I don't see WP:NBAND being met here. Mkdw ^talk 05:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mkdw ^talk 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Brent Pendergrass

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

Not a particularly notable subject. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep seems notable. SeniorStar ( talk) 13:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete The article lacks any truly reliable sources to show that Pendergrass has gained any note. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Tactical Edge, Inc.

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

I PRODed this but it was questioned by one of the apparent company employees, who naturally is unaware of policy but, regardless, this is not suitable for Wikipedia as it's still advertising and clearly only exists as a business listing hence WP:NOT applies. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest any actual independent or notability or that we should overwork ourselves with such as an easy case. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note I'm not sure what policy they were breaking by requesting an undelete, as all PRODs are allowed to be undeleted upon request. Primefac ( talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable small company that fails WP:CORP and is more than likely a promo. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Kinte Fergerson

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a podcaster and arts promoter, which is referenced entirely to primary sources, blogs and podcasts with the exception of a single glancing namecheck of his existence as a soundbite provider in a news article that isn't primarily about him. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every podcaster is entitled to an article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, verifying a claim of notability that satisfies WP:CREATIVE, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable internet personality. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 00:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, refs certainly fail WP:ENT. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to In Square Circle. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Land of La La

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

Non-notable single, fails WP:NSONG ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to In Square Circle, the song's parent album. The single charted but with little additional information available to warrant a standalone article, redirecting seems reasonable as its a plausible search term. Gongshow talk 06:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Kick Off (TV series)

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

Not notable television program, unsourced and marked since 2012 with no improvements -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Per WP:GNG Non-noteable television show. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect and upmerge into the respective fox channel article. Which I do not seem to be able to find? Not especially notable and lacking any non trivial range of secondary sources. Aoziwe ( talk) 03:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 05:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Zeventine

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. The weblinks given indicate that this person exists, and promotes their music and record label, but little else. 331dot ( talk) 21:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Hasn't done anything yet; just a kid with a few social media accounts, a website and a dream. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 03:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdw ^talk 05:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Dayshell (album)

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 22:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdw ^talk 05:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Dead Vulture (EP)

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

Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 22:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Georgia Cloepfil

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep While apparently only a small fish in the US, their relevance in Australia would seem to be in the context of a much smaller pond so more relatively notable in Australia. Just as relevant and in depth (!) as many of the other people in List of Melbourne Victory Women players. Her AU team is at top national level in AU. Aoziwe ( talk) 03:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence of the notability/coverage that @ Aoziwe: asserts. Giant Snowman 13:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Has not played senior international football, and W-League (Australia) is not fully professional, therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. I find no evidence that she meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 20:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to SmartAsk. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Justin Landry

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

There's no inherited notability from anything listed not should we consider mistaking it as such, it's a fact he is actually onpy known for 1 TV series, and that series itself only lasted about 2 years, with the other listed works only being trivial 1-time characters. Hence WP:NOT also applies since Wikipedia is not IMDb, something thid current article is only fitting for. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep passes WP:GNG as has reliable source newspaper coverage such as Toronto Star and Town Crier, being on a television series for two years is not trivial. Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Think there's enough to warrant keeping. Seems to have a number of roles and as noted above a two-year stint (if he was in it for all of that time) could in itself be considered 'notable' Eagleash ( talk) 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. The Town Crier is a community weekly newspaper that is neither widely distributed beyond its own neighbourhood nor archived anywhere that we could retrieve the content again if the weblink ever died, so it does not count toward passage of WP:GNG. It would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sources, but it cannot count toward the initial question of whether GNG has been met in the first place. And the same issue pertains to Durhamregion.com. And I searched to find the Toronto Star article as well — it is not in fact about him, but merely namechecks his existence a single time in an article about something else, so it's not bringing any GNG either. And WP:NACTOR is not met just because roles are asserted, either: it's met when the roles are supported by sourcing that satisfies GNG — but none of the sourcing here satisfies GNG, so NACTOR is not passed. SNGs do not provide an exemption from having to source an article over GNG; they serve to clarify the types of things are accepted as notability claims if they're supported by GNG-passing sources, but the sourceability still has to pass GNG to actually get the article included, regardless of what it unsourcedly or bad-sourcedly claims. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can source it better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to SmartAsk There is no question that the CBC television show was notable and while this individual does have some coverage, I don't believe it's enough to warrant a standalone article. I think a compromise of arguments here is to redirect to SmartAsk. Mkdw ^talk 02:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect as suggested by Mkdw. Right now, it is just too soon. He has a made-for-TV film coming out later this week. I cleaned up the outrageous puffery and crystal balling. Bearian ( talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Allenby, Southall

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

Whilst there is an Allenby Road and an Allenby School, a review of current and historic maps show no point or area of this name. A google search also finds no place of this name in the Southall area. DavidCane ( talk) 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, does not meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG, this may be a name known amongst locals, but have been unable to find any useable sources, lots of business listings for the Allenby Road (including a yummy looking Pizza, Kebab & Curry place ) but thats all, British History Online brings up mentions of the road in the article on Norward/Southall but thats all. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Ninja (League of Legends player)

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

checked wp:n for sports, nothing on videogamers, no apparent notability Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 11:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

delete not notable. Btw the lack of notability guidelines in WP:NSPORT for gamers is intentional.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - lack of third party sources that meet the WP:GNG. Sources so far have either been unreliable or not significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BURDEN was not addressed. No prejudice on recreation if significant coverage in reliable sources are available and included on a subsequent article. Mkdw ^talk 05:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Vern B. Moore

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

According to this obituary, this "newspaper man" was the "National Advertising Manager" for Le Droit, hardly enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Weak keep -- My initial thought was that he did not quite meet notability, but appointment as a Knight Grand Cross of a Catholic order suggests that the ancient order in question considered him notable; if so, WP should do so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure, if reliable sourcing were present to support the article. It's not so notable as to confer an exemption from having to cite any sources, though. Bearcat ( talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find the depth of reliable sourcing present to properly support an article — but holding an honorific title within a religious order is not enough to hand him a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie. Even the Pope still has to be sourceable. Bearcat ( talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment (voted above), lack of sourcing suggests that the article should be tagged as needing sources, not that it should be deleted. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

This article is claiming nothing about him that confers an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a WP:GNG pass being explicitly demonstrated by sourcing present in the article. There certainly does exist a small, highly rarefied class of notability claims which are considered so inherently notable that an article must be allowed to exist — and so if somebody halfassedly starts one without actually showing the proper depth of sourcing, then as long as we can verify that the claim is actually true we keep the article and just flag it for refimprove. Presidents of countries, members of legislatures, popes, and on and so forth. But that's only granted to certain specific positions of high public importance and visibility, where we know for a fact that proper sourcing for it does exist because congressmen and legislators and popes are a thing that media do cover in depth, and the creator's only error was not actually having done as much work as we already know is possible. And even then, the article does still have to be improved with sourcing, and the article doesn't earn a permanent exemption from having to be improved.

"Knight Grand Cross of a religious order" is not such a claim; it's the kind of claim that would count if he could be shown to pass GNG for it, but there's no guarantee that GNG will be passed for it, and thus no guarantee that the article will actually be improvable at all. For notability claims of that type, we do not "keep and flag for refimprove"; we delete and then permit recreation in the future if the necessary depth of sourceability is actually shown properly in the new version. Bearcat ( talk) 16:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete I have searched news archives with and without B. and Basil, and without quotes but with keywords like Ontario and Catholic, and I can find nothing , nothing at all. I do not see that honorary titles awarded by the Order of the Holy Sepulchre confers notability; (perhaps it did before they lost the Holy Land). I am genuinely surprised not to find at least an obit, since he does seem to have been a civic leader. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Arca Foundation

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

Notability not established. Sources only mention it in passing. Most of the actual information, of which there is very little, is from a 20 year old hostile opinion piece in the Washington Times. BayShrimp ( talk) 23:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - After looking through the news results, none establish notability. They are all passing mentions. -- Dane ^talk 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as clear advertising and I'll also note it seems the authoring user was part of a quite apparent advertising campaign; in this cases, we clearly apply WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I see no advertising problems in the article. Are there those you can identify? As for your issue with the author, that is not a WP:NOT policy issue. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm not seeing any reason for this to be at AfD. The foundation was founded by the daughter of the R. J. Reynolds of tobacco fame, and a relative of the Reynolds of Reynolds Wrap fame. A 16 October 2016 article from Catholic Herald Online identifies Arca as "a left-wing charity opposed to many aspects of traditional Catholic teaching." The article serves to identify the organization in the places it is mentioned elsewhere in the encyclopedia. WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books shows hits that have not been mentioned and therefore don't seem to have been considered. Unscintillating ( talk) 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The Catholic Herald article then says it shares an address with another organization which it was talking about, and that's it. BayShrimp ( talk) 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd think that would depend on if other sources connect Arca and CACG and liberal Catholics. Unscintillating ( talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't question the facts presented, just if they are enough to make a worthwhile article. BayShrimp ( talk) 11:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Are there problems with the article? It certainly didn't become a worthless article because I quoted from a snippet, from a source that turns out to be based in London! Unscintillating ( talk) 00:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. $50 million foundation funding political lobbying is notable. It is a good function for Wikipedia to keep a roster of these. -- do ncr am 02:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete it is definitely related to some known entities and its old. But age of an organizations or associations with known things or people does not establish Wiki standards we are setting. Light2021 ( talk) 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak keep $55 million private grantmaking foundation isn't that big, but at the same time, it is clearly much more than a private family foundation. That, combined with the small mentions here and there in sources pushes it to keep for me. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Note As nominator I'm cool with default to keep, rather than wasting more time with it. BayShrimp ( talk) 22:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Claudia Gravy

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

Can this machine translation be saved? Removed it from the CSD queue, evil deletionist that I am, because I think it possible it might be salvageable. Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Should be deleted per WP:DENY. Created by a prolific sock who is thriving on these. Can then be re-written from scratch when there is more material. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T
C} 04:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, it clearly can be saved by someone with dual fluency in Spanish and English. (Any editors who could fix it are cordially invited to examine the 3,583 articles at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review where Spanish-speaking volunteers are badly needed and decide whether fixing this particular' article is the best use of their time.) After a long discussion here, the community reached consensus (a) to prevent new articles of this sort being created using an edit filter and (b) as a special measure, to implement a temporary speedy deletion criterion, WP:CSD#X2, to enable their speedy removal. A number of editors, of whom DuckDuckStop was probably the most prolific, exploited an accidentally-introduced loophole in the translation software to mass-generate unreliable machine translations of articles from foreign languages and we're now about six months into the cleanup effort. The situation is analogous to the Neelix redirects, where a small number may be fixable but it's simply cheaper, in terms of editor time, to begin again from scratch. Delete, without prejudice to a re-creation as a non-automatically-generated article by an editor in good standing.— S Marshall T/ C 17:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete requested by author. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

09F

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

I am nominating this for deletion as the TC project does not generally have this type of disambiguation/SIA page as we find them useless. In fact a lot of them were deleted earlier this year in this AFD. This is especially true when you consider the background of the F designator, which while for once is official, it was only introduced after the 1997-98 South Pacific cyclone season. The other bizarre thing is that this particular page only features two systems, both of which were designated as tropical cyclones and named Paula and Nancy. I also hereby request the deletion of 09F (disambiguation) and 09F (cyclone) which redirect to this article and are equally as useless imho. Jason Rees ( talk) 00:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

[1] [ [1]

[2] ttp://www.sansebastianfestival.com/2012/secciones_y_peliculas/7/1216/es

[3] ttp://mizna.org/articles/news/146.shtml

[4] ttp://blog.palestine-studies.org/2016/09/08/solomons-stone-theater-of-the-absurd-in-occupied-jerusalem/

[5] ttp://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2016/01/defying-disability-160119100833264.html

[6] ttp://fisahara.es/portfolio-items/la-piedra-de-salomon/?lang=en

[7] ttp://www.capital.cl/cultura/2012/09/25/120955-fiebre-de-estrellas-en-festival-de-san-sebastian

[8] ttps://www.sansebastianfestival.com/in/pelicula.php?ano=2012&codigo=1216

[9] ttp://peru.com/entretenimiento/cine/actores-se-dieron-cita-festival-internacional-cine-san-sebastian-noticia-88323-331885

[10] ttps://www.pinterest.com/pin/112519690662953996/

[11] ttp://cadenaser.com/ser/2016/10/13/cultura/1476379583_056194.html

[12] ttp://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-actors-karim-saleh-l-r-ramzi-maqdisi-and-ali-suliman-pose-on-the-occasion-100282400.html

[13] ttp://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/12/21/256276.html

[14] ttp://www.ub.edu/cric/

[15] ttp://www.ub.edu/mai/ca/inici/

[16] ttp://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/martin-luther-palestine/

[17] ttps://books.google.es/books?id=aDxstp76MHgC&pg=PT439&lpg=PT439&dq=ramzi+maqdisi+martin+luther+king&source=bl&ots=Sta7xJwvNB&sig=LYju7Gn54jx3cj75peG-90Pc4Y8&hl=ca&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV-cnHuYXRAhWLvhQKHZ-sC_IQ6AEITDAK#v=onepage&q=ramzi%20maqdisi%20martin%20luther%20king&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook