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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Blake Alma (TV Host) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Creator bypassed AfC nomination process after numerous failed attempts to prove notability. This article is also to circumvent the salting of Blake Alma, a 2013 attempt at creation. Wylie pedia 23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wylie pedia 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 29. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - Too many blogs cited in the article, which are not reliable secondary sources. The hunting magazine article is encouraging, but doesn't quite push it over the line of notability for me. Seems WP:TOOSOON. Avoiding the normal Wikipedia processes is also disconcerting. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete – I have come to the same conclusion as Indy beetle: a classic case of TOOSOON. Blogs are mixed with RS in the article and notability is not quite established. "Blake+Alma"&oq="Blake+Alma"&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...24752.32844.0.33826.16.14.2.0.0.0.289.3227.2-14.14.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..3.0.0....0.l6FOxw7gcT8 finds a lot of coverage, but it is mainly concentrated in OutdoorHub (is it reliable?) and even then only across a short time period. Due to him being active in many different areas redirecting would be biased towards one aspect of his career. I would post a more detailed rationale and investigate his noteworthiness further if I were off mobile. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 00:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not enough reliable sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. For the same reasons why I declined at AFC. T v x1 16:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is a teenager with a PR campaign. I don't see any references that establish notability, or any claim that WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ENT are met. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merged to OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops. Although a reasonable number of sources exist to show that the word exists and has a consistent definition, no showing has been made that the article can be increased beyond the current dicdef. It has been pointed out that this word has been used in contexts outside of OkCupid, but it remains clear that the primary association of the word is with OkCupid, and other uses can be discussed in the context of its origination with that website. bd2412 T 02:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sapiosexuality (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Term is WP:NEO and is mainly used in reference to dating websites like OkCupid, as all of the sources in the article show. Although a few scholars have mentioned the term to document that it exists, it is not a term that academics use. It is not a sexual orientation. The current entry is also a WP:Dictionary entry. This topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 29. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It may not be recognised by the scientific community, but it is a term that's been thrown around plenty in popular culture and there are many reliable sources that discuss it. And if the article is a dictionary entry atm that should be cause for change, not deletion. Passes WP:GNG easily, especially with coverage in the Toronto Star ( [1]) and The New York Times ( [2]) newspapers with the largest weekly circulation in Canada and largest combined print and digital circulation in the United States, respectively. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Indy beetle, what is there to state about the term beside the fact that it is a category used on some dating websites? WP:Stubs are not ideal. Per WP:Neo, neither are articles on neologisms. And per WP:No page, not every article needs its own Wikipedia page. This one certainly does not. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Merging also exists, which is why I noted that this topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to OkCupid, I'm not aware it has any widespread use outside of one website.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not actually exist, it's just a made-up thing by a dating website. The source coverage that is present discusses it only within the context of it's creator, a line or two at Okcupid is enough. TheValeyard ( talk) 02:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article is too esoteric and lacks widespread and in-depth coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just a passing fad in terms of it being a term. It is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon at the very least. Knox490 ( talk) 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues). A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a WP:DICTDEF here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  Comment I've just seen [3] (via Hacker News) about this. I have no prejudice against re-creation with better sources in the future. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - DictDef. Or Non Notable Neologism. Pick one. Carrite ( talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:GNG - all WP:NEO says is that there must be secondary sources on it - which do exist. It does not put a especially higher standard for neologisms, just that merely being used is not enough. I think there's also enough on cultural perception etc for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Stuff like With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities. etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in Intelligence (journal) [4] that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks. Not just okcupid. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Note: See Talk:Sapiosexuality for Czar's take on the concept's notability and the article's possibility for expansion. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete--a few recent write-ups (well, old ones, and no new ones--so it hasn't really caught on) do not make for a subject that meets the GNG; we're falling victim to a recentist addiction to fairly trivial mentions. If this weren't trivial, we'd have more and more serious hits in books etc. than this footnote--which isn't better than our article (and makes me question Wiley). I have, however, ordered a copy of this book--mreow. Drmies ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - despite the Delete and Salt SNOW vote on the last (3rd) AfD, the term appears to now be a notable thing. This just popped up today in the Daily Mail. [ [5]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And this yesterday: [ [6]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Josh Rosenthal (artist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable with significant coverage in independent sources either as an actor ( WP:ACTOR) or an artist ( WP:NARTIST) Boneymau ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not pass our inclusion criteria for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No significant coverage in independent sources. Just another PR piece on a non-notable individual. Kb.au ( talk) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete notability not supported by reliable sources. 104.163.153.162 ( talk) 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails NACTOR, NARTIST, GNG, etc. South Nashua ( talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Current article state seems to violate WP:PROMO too. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Kate Blakk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't see the claim to notability here, and no significant coverage in independent sources. She played minor roles in a number of stage works and performed with live shows for Disney. I can't find independent corroboration of playing the role Marianne in Shout!, she certainly didn't originate the role. She does not appear to be credited on the Sardi single. Boneymau ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete her roles as an actress are just not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete minor roles only and only 1 gnews hit. LibStar ( talk) 03:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No coverage in major media sources, nor any coverage of significance in other sources. The SMH ref inline doesn't even mention the subject. Does not pass GNG or WP:NACTOR. WP:NOTPROMO. Kb.au ( talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete non notable actress fails the WP:GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was kept. bd2412 T 03:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Prajesh Sen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:FILMMAKER. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep – From this Google News search I found some significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject with no false positives. My results are shown below:

• Manorama's Travails of an implicated Scientist: Review of the autobiography of Nambi Narayana – A reliable source, but not quite significant coverage though, but I will still count it barely towards notability.
• The Times of India's Mollywood renews its love for biopics, wherein there is 2 and a half paragraphs about Sen. This is the main source towards establishing inclusion.
• Other sources exist as well, which together push him over towards notability.

Indian editors can help to find sources but even the sources that I have posted are in my opinion enough. I was considering erring on the side of caution as this is a biography of a living person and he may meet TOOSOON but there are probably sources out there that are hard to access and often need custom searches or perhaps there is more stuff in print only (unlikely in my opinion). I'm unsure why all the sources I have found are post-September; maybe it's a problem with my search. I don't think the sources are quite passing mention in response to NA1000's statement.

In conclusion, yes he fails WP:DIRECTOR but he does pass the general notability guideline and thus whether he passes WP:CREATIVE or not is moot. Also, he may pass WP:JOURNALIST (same as CREATIVE, DIRECTOR, and FILMMAKER) under criterion 4c: The person's work (or works) has [sic] won significant critical attention due to his numerous awards for journalism (let's hope they're not made up). J 947 ^{( c · m)} 22:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; the coverage is in passing, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. I don't think that the sources above are sufficient. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• 'Weak Keep per J947. The coverage is weak and directing a single film doesn't meet any SNG, but I believe GNG is met. I have no ability to tell if there are Malayalam articles. My biggest concern is the title; is it "G Prajesh Sen" or "Prajesh Sen" or "Prajeshsen"? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• I think it should be G Prajesh Sen from my searches, and it definitely confused me but I think they are the same. Also, his role as a journalist seems to be the main source of coverage. J 947 ^{( contribs · mail)} 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Merge to Outer Hebrides#Transport which I've already done [7] (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Bus na Comhairle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Only source is a bus schedule for the company itself. Fails CORPDEPTH. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to Outer Hebrides#Transport, where it can be covered in appropriate context and (brief) detail. Fails WP:GNG for an individual article, but is entirely proper to be mentioned there (where it technically is, but a bit of detail on 'which islands' would not be amiss), and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Outer_Hebrides#Transport where the subject is already mentioned. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any sources; a redirect would be a cleaner outcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to Outer Hebrides#Transport, which ought to mention who owns the company. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect as suggested. I do not think there is enough notability for a separate article, but the transport section of the Outer Hebrides article would seem an obvious place to have this kind of information. Dunarc ( talk) 19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Dilts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still no reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, largely promotional and supported only by self-published fringe sources. Famous _dog (c) 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete looks like a classic promotional article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete without prejudice to re-creation, preferably as a redirect  The article itself uses future tense, and after reading [8], suggests that the article's future tense is advancing a split from the founding ideas of NLP.  For reference, one of the two primary sources is a biography with extensive detail, [9], and the second is written by the topic.
  As for the topic itself, reading the article on NLP shows analysis that reaches into concepts of religion, just as the second primary source lists "Spiritual" as an additional layer of the "NeuroLogical levels".  The NLP article's mention of New Age quasi-religion fits in with the topic's association with University of California at Santa Cruz.  The NLP article has 11 cites to the topic at hand.  I see that the topic at hand has been translated into Russian, German, French, and Italian.  I find in Google searches that the topic has a patent regarding biofeedback, and the primary-source biography couples his work with the biofeedback game "Wild Divine", a topic with Ghits in Google Scholar.  Certainly Wikipedia notable as per the lede and nutshell; although if we are having trouble getting a standalone article on the topic, space could be created at NLP to identify him in a section called History.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is a CV with a few promotional sentences tacked on. No claim of meeting WP:NAUTHOR. No independent references, and I was unable to find any. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

No opinion on whether a redirect to Neuro-linguistic programming is appropriate. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, @ Unscintillating: for adding those previous AfDs (which were thrown out on largely procedural grounds). Famousdog (woof) (grrr) 15:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam. Redirection is the appropriate action per WP:ATD-R and the absence of BLP concerns. A Train ^talk 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Marion Lee Kempner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivia, in the end. Kierzek ( talk) 20:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER; notability is not inherited from the fact a segment of an anthology mentioned his writing home. A man who served his country and sadly did not come home, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and his letter does not particularly stand out compared to others written by soldiers.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails notability guidelines for both writers and soldiers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam - His story has been inspirational to many (for instance, here is a long article about Kemper from the Galveston Daily News in 1998 [10]), but most newspapers.com and google books results are about his letter. The letter is famous because it was collected in that anthology. The anthology receives a good deal of coverage and that article could be expanded (or an article on the book of the same title created), and discussion of why the letters were important added which could mention Kempner, particularly his characterization of America as a "a country of thorns and cuts", etc. So while the article doesn't currently mention Kempner, most people searching for Kempner will be doing so because of the anthology, and a redirect there seems appropriate. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If redirected, then to an article about the book, which contains three of his letters. The Kempner article currently links to the movie; that should be fixed if a book article is created.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clear WP:SOLDIER fail, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Thomas Cheung Yiu-sing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability criteria, all the press is about his death, so WP:BIO1E applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Heroic death, but no long-term significance. If necessary this can be merged/redirected into Amoycan Industrial Centre fire, which already contains 3 sentences about him. Timmyshin ( talk) 17:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, per WP:ONEEVENT, not notable for a standalone article. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete dieing in an industrial fire is not enough to create notability. Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Tad Riley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

While an interesting footnote to the cold war, simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivia and Wikipedia is WP:Not News. Kierzek ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete with no need to redirect.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I don't find any additional sources and this seems to be a minor 1E. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Clear WP:SOLDIER fail mentioned in the context of flying a few recon missions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete totally fails our notability guidelines for soldiers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails the Gng. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^talk 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Bruce M. Macfarlane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor tv personality who doesn't meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet either WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable mayor and TV anchorman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The Illinois legislature is filled with notable people who gave the topic attention, but I'm having trouble finding sources on Google.  [ This page provides something he did as mayor.  WGN is a 50,000 watt radio station, which at night can be heard over most of the populated US and I assume Canada.  WGN-TV went on the air in 1948, so was one of the earliest broadcasters.  His father was associated with the Tribune newspaper.  It seems likely that someone with access to Chicago newspaper archives would have a chance of finding more on this topic.  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor being a single-market local TV or radio personality is an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an article that's this weakly sourced. And saying that improved sourcing might be possible is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept, either — somebody needs to show the evidence that enough sourcing to get him over GNG does exist, preferably by actually improving the article but at least by showing some hard results from an actual search of Chicago newspaper archives in this discussion, and it is not enough to just theorize that maybe better sources might exist. Bearcat ( talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Did you look for sources?  If so, what did you find?  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• If you want the article kept, then you're the one whose job it is to find enough sources to get it kept. Bearcat ( talk) 00:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NSPORT is met, no consensus about WP:SOLDIER. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

John W. Overton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Uncited. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non-notable.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet out notability guidelines for soliders. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - Easilly meets V, NPOV, NOR, N, NSPORTS. I don't like to editorialize at AfD, but Overton is one of the greatest college middle-distance runners of all time and I'm unhappy to see this nomination and the current state of the discussion. I'll work on adding sources, but in the meantime, here is a short article about Overton in the Yale Alumni Magazine: [11]. Here is an article about his recent induction in the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame [12]. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep I added sources from the track and field side and have more to add. He clearly meets WP:NSPORTS by being a multiple world record holder. He was also multiple national champion and collegiate champion. All that before we get to the war hero stuff. Trackinfo ( talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - Seems he passes GNG and WP:NSPORT - holding world records. Voters should be mindful that SOLDIER creates a presumption of notability yet doesn't exclude notability for soldiers not meeting it (either a soldier or via non-soldier activities). Icewhiz ( talk) 12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nearly passes WP:SOLDIER, as he was awarded two second-tier gallantry awards. But I believe he does pass WP:NSPORTS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:NSPORTS as a world record holding athlete. I have noticed a very concerning pattern, as well, where the world has been turned upside down and supplementary notability standards, intended to...supplement...GNG in cases where notable topics might have difficulty demonstrating GNG compliance, are being considered a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "it passes GNG, but fails [SUPNG], delete as not notable". This really needs to be something that is, for want of a better term, stamped out, as it actually is a genuine threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: meets the presumption at WP:NTRACK based on points 5 & 7, while the amount of coverage in the article appears to meet the GNG, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep qualifies as NSPORTS
• Keep as qualifies as NSPORTS Wpgbrown ( talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER #1 apart from anything else, with the Navy Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross. Not sure why editors seem to be saying he doesn't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Jan Koláček (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches and citation checks, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article is essentially unsourced (using only the subject's own web site as a reference) and makes no claim that would pass WP:MUSICIAN. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No RS is a dealbreaker. Agricola44 ( talk) 13:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delte does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, he seems to be known as a skilled arranger and music teacher, but I can't find any reliable sources suggesting he meets our inclusion criteria. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 13:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Jdcooper ( talk) 23:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite ( talk) 03:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Katie ^talk 20:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

National Weather Service North Little Rock, Arkansas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary spin-out articles of List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices. Provides little additional information. The offices on their own fails WP:ORG, an office does not inherit notability from the National Weather Service. Also sourcing in these articles are either limited or non-existent. Some articles likely contain WP:OR. Rusf10 ( talk) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Other articles being nominated:

National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Topeka, Kansas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Wichita, Kansas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Jackson, Kentucky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Louisville, Kentucky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Paducah, Kentucky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Kansas City/Pleasant Hill, Missouri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service St. Louis, Missouri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Caribou, Maine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Boston, Massachusetts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Albany, New York (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Binghamton, New York (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service State College, Pennsylvania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Burlington, Vermont (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Baltimore/Washington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Miami, Florida (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service New Orleans/Baton Rouge, Louisiana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Shreveport, Louisiana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Tulsa, Oklahoma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Memphis, Tennessee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Nashville, Tennessee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Amarillo, Texas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Fort Worth, Texas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

National Weather Service Boise, Idaho (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep Illinois articles mentioned for example are hardly lacking in content nor do they look full of Original Research as charged. CaribDigita ( talk) 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The Chicago, IL article is little more than a list of radio stations. The Lincoln, IL is one of the better written articles, but I still believe it fails WP:ORG.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Articles seem to be well sourced, though to non-independent (government) sources. Also, as with most mass-noms, there are issues with some likely having better sources out there than others and there are not links to previous AfDs. Hobit ( talk) 20:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep By far a WP:SOFIXIT proposition rather than full deletion for any of these (especially major city offices and Norman, Oklahoma, which the nom seems to have failed to do the most basic of WP:BEFORE and most know as the major research center/forecast authority for tornadoes in the United States; same with Miami and the National Hurricane Center). Nate • ( chatter) 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Mrschimpf:I think you may have confused the local NWS office in Norman, OK with the Storm Prediction Center (also located in Norman, OK), I believe they are two separate offices.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Whatever their connection is, you have 20+ sources in the Norman NWS article and they definitely don't have a stone wall between them. Nate • ( chatter) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The Norman article is not quite as good as it appears on the surface. It starts off with a mostly unsourced history section, then it goes into a discussion about a notable weather event which already has its own article, next comes a description of its website (this section should just be deleted regardless), and then a list of radio stations. That's it, almost all of the sources are the NWS website.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Would be throwing away an enormous amount of valuable and perfectly notable work. Unnecessary spin-out really. What is the purpose of any encyclopedia if not for spin out articles. scope_creep ( talk) 18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Apart from most of the articles have many valid sources this AfD bundling is in the territory of WP:TRAINWRECK which hinders meaningful assessment of individual article and further worsen the AfD process. I will support examining each on its merit or at most 3 in AfD. Saying they contain OR is hasty generalization (which is caused by the bundling) and did not match what I see in many of the articles – Ammarpad ( talk) 01:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Chronic deletionism at its worst from one of our most strident deletionists. Sadly, Rusf10 has made admonished after having made previous bulk nominations and has too often failed to make the most basic analysis required by WP:BEFORE. Above and beyond failing to look for sources for each of the articles bundled into this nomination, it's unclear if there was even an effort to read articles such as National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois, National Weather Service Miami, Florida and National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, which are indisputably notable. An out-and-out ban on AfD for Rusf10 should be seriously considered to end the further abuse of process. Alansohn ( talk) 02:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Mr. Sohn (I know you don't like me calling you by your first name), do you have an actual policy reason to keep these? Because that is an outright personal attack and nothing else.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Read WP:OUTING and start using my full username; this is not the first time that you have violated WP:HARASS and this is an explicit final warning. The policy argument is that this bulk nomination is an abuse of process from an editor who has been warned previously about bulk nominations. Alansohn ( talk) 03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey you picked your username, not me.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Sherlock, the user name is eight characters and makes no indication of how it is to be parsed; that's based solely on you;re attempts to disclose information about me in violation of WP:OUTING. Read WP:HARASS and follow it; else dig your own grave. As you seem to be following me around, you'll see that I have participated in AfDs above and beyond those included in your initial threats aimed at me, both now and for the past dozen years. When a bulk AfD popped up, I was astounded to see that an editor like you who had already been warned against making abusive bulk deletions was at it again. I thus participated. Alansohn ( talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

So you just admitted you decided to participate after you saw I nominated it. Youre clearing following me around (not the other way around), but that's okay.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Bulshit, dude. I said I saw a bulk nomination on AfD and was surprised to see your name on it after I had edited the nom. Remember Sherlock that you're the one who promised to delete articles because you believed they were connected to me (see this threat, as a reminder). Take a look at how participation is tracking here and tell me where consensus is? Are you going to withdraw the nomination or will you just keep battling away in the true spirit of disruptive deletionism? Alansohn ( talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Clearly a WP:SOFIXIT. Given the size of the city and the various other similar articles for similar sized cities, I don't see why the article was ever nominated for deletion. The National Wealther Service does important work. Deletionism at its worst is at play here. Knox490 ( talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After relisting, consensus has developed that the article fails WP:OR and doesn't have proper attribution for copying within Wikipedia. ansh 666 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Frontier Strip (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The phrase "frontier strip" appears to have been invented solely for this Wikipedia namespace. I can not find any historical or scholarly examples of the phrase "frontier strip" being used in relation to the United States, and as far as I can tell the phrase "frontier strip" does not appear in any of the article's listed references . The small number of Google search hits (regular search, books and scholar) for "frontier strip" appear to be traceable back to this article, with the exception of some references that are clearly about other countries.

In sum, this page's definition of a "frontier strip" is not a recognized grouping of U.S. states. In addition, the general topic is already thoroughly reviewed by American frontier and other state and regional pages. Thomas H. White ( talk) 15:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree--it should be deleted. I cannot find any usage. Rjensen ( talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 16:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Rename to something, I'm not sure what, or Merge into American Frontier. Leave no redirect from "Frontier Strip". Looking at newspapers.com, frontier strip seems to be a term occasionally used to describe regions near frontlines of battles, but I agree it doesn't work here. Also, the "Last American Frontier", which is used to in this article, generally refers to Alaska and not this region. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Rename / Merge - this is a difficult one - as this article dates back to 2005 making Wikipedia->source contamination quite an issue. I have found some sources referring to these as "Frontier Strip". Post 2005: [13] [14] [15] [16]. But I am unable to find older sources using this name for Texas to Dakota. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Modified to delete as it seems most the contents are copy pssted from other wiki articles. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Rename- Unfortunately this article has been around for a long time and people have put a lot of work into it. However, it seems to be a made-up name for geographic region. I think the easier thing to do would be to move the page to American Great Plains. Alternately candidates for merges would be American Frontier (as above) or Great Plains (although this article includes Canada too, which is why I prefer the rename).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC) reply

How about renaming to History of the Great Plains or History of the American Great Plains (I think the former is better right now, since American Great Plains redirects to Great Plains). This would be a minor repurposing, with frontier strip replaced with great plains in the text and the image perhaps replaced with File:Map of the Great Plains.png. The description section doesn't really have anything not in Great Plains, and this page would, I think, be better kept separate but referred to in the history section of that article. Smmurphy^{( Talk)}

While most of the article deals with history, some things would not fit into an article titled "History of". That's why I'd prefer renaming to "American Great Plains" with a hatnote at the top going to the existing "Great Plains" article.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree, but American Great Plains already exists (is a redirect to Great Plains). As I meant to say, the non-history stuff from this article could be merged into that article, except it is already there, so it can just be trimmed in this article. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge each section into the history section of a relevant state or region article such as American West or Great Plains. See Below The edit history of this article is eye-opening: The original is nothing more than a list of states accompanied by an unsourced and speculative explanation. A later revision attempts to attribute it to the US Census, but this is also fails to support the grouping of the states. Everything else seems to be a mishmash of events that occurred within or around this group of states, but there is still nothing that ties it together as a cohesive region. – dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• merge a nice piece of OR, which of course has no place in WP. Jytdog ( talk) 05:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think there is consensus for merging, but not on a target. So the question is: where do you think it should be merged? ansh 666 05:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Most of the historical information appears to have been copy-and-pasted from other Wiki articles by User:Reddi in June and July 2009 without any references or attribution. I copied the article into my userspace at User:Dlthewave/Frontier Strip Draft and removed everything that I could verify as copied, just to see what's left. If deleted, I don't think we would lose very much that isn't covered elsewhere. – dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is a historical concept; Glad i caught this so get the wikimarkup before any deletion; Maybe move it somewhere else; Sad, not the WP of yesterday ... just another reason not to contribute much anymore; Enjoy -- J. D. Redding 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, most of your contributions will be retained in the articles from which they were copied. – dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Not really, but destroy the history; Cheers -- J. D. Redding 20:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Editors are reminded that if content is merged a redirect must remain for attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If this is OR, which nobody seems to dispute, then Wikipedia has no place for it, per WP:NOR. Sandstein 10:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOR. -- J04n( talk page) 14:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Over half of this article was copy-and-pasted from other Wikipedia articles, so there would be no point in merging. Most of the remainder is either not suitable for merging (climate and political data) or already covered elsewhere. – dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete is where I land too. Looks like violates WP:OR and that seems to be consensus. I would love to be wrong.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete After someone pointing out that this is just a copy and paste job, I have to change to delete. There's nothing worth saving here.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I ma nominate in a year or two when opinion about promotionalism becomes more rational DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Taziki's Mediterranean Café (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy WP:NOT. The previous discussion argued on the grounds of notability, but I do not see why. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - notable national chain, and unique in its own right. Article cites multiple secondary and third party RS using inline citations. If this article doesn't pass as keep, then we might as well AfD Panera Bread, Dôme (coffeehouse), McCafé, and all the others listed in Category:Bakery cafés, and that's just one of many restaurant/cafe categories. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Passes WP:GNG. The article is written based upon what reliable sources state about it. Positive press coverage does not automatically equate to advertising. If the company received significant coverage in the form of negative press for some matter, I would have included that as well. The article does not have a promotional tone and does not encourage readers to do business with the company. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I !voted keep at the previous AfD, and my rationale still stands. (I will add more reason later) – Ammarpad ( talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to pass GNG. PROMO/SPAM doesn't apply to RS-worthy refs, that appears to be the case here after a quick peek. South Nashua ( talk) 19:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable regional chain with over 80 restaurants. Plenty of decent press coverage. REAL certification section could use cleaning up but that is hardly a reason to delete the article.-- Bernie44 ( talk) 19:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I see the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused an unfortunate-- but I hope temporary -- change in our views on promotionalism. I'll probably renominate once we return to rationality. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hattie B's Hot Chicken (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists . The previous discussion was closed because of sockpuppettry, but that shouldn't prevent an immediate renomination. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Not only is this a renowned local eatery but it has been covered very subatantially by national media such as USA Today and National Geographic. Very notable. FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. For starters, the USA Today article is certainly not "local coverage", and is not a listing. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per my !vote on the previous nomination. Non-notable as a chain, but main location notable as a significant tourist attraction in Nashville. I've never been there, I don't like "hot chicken", but I recognized the topic from reading somewhere. In my estimation it is a topic likely to be looked up by readers looking for encyclopedic information. Meets GNG comfortably. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 17:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Multi-state restaurant with abundant national WP:RS coverage, including many superlatives. Use the "WP reference" link at the top [25], and the WP:Advanced source searching#Reliable Sources Search Engine. Easy meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender ( talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Plenty of substantial national and local coverage from established sources, and it is regularly noted as one of the main culinary attractions in Nashville. And in reading through the previous deletion discussion it was very heavily influenced by misleading arguments and analysis from sockpuppets.-- Bernie44 ( talk) 19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep There's substantial coverage to establish notability as already shown above. And I believe any article that's not G11'ble, that's means it is promotional tone is fixable if there's any. And existence of more sources already shown both in the previous AfD and here. – Ammarpad ( talk) 19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep its fine. i trimmed a bunch of padding about hot chicken but it meets GNG for sure. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see the promotional tone here but this is a clear WP:NORG fail. No prejudice against recreation with better sources. A Train ^talk 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Nai Zindagi Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing of significant kind to pass WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 04:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete advertisement. Jytdog ( talk) 07:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is not an advertisment. There is no advertising it it, at all. It is a charity that provides blood screening for druggies. scope_creep ( talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

So where is coverage to pass WP:NORG? Störm (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Although it doesn't read like an ad, it fails WP:NGO and almost seems like a directory listing. -- QEDK ( 桜 ❄ 伴) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Club Asturias de Puebla (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A defunct amateur club. Does not pass either wp:gng or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Barney crew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure listcruft. I checked the first couple names in most of the sections and none are notable. Page is unsourced, and save for one bluelink is a dead end. I see nowhere to go with this. Primefac ( talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete We're WP:NOT IMDb or the show's closing credits roll. Nate • ( chatter) 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Almost all names fail WP:BLP. This is purely WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - here's another candidate for AfD: List of Sesame Street crew. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 (employees) (I guess there's some context there) per Nate. That is outrageously over the top, listing just about anybody who had anything to do with the show. (However, I'm shocked, shocked not to see Hilton Queton named. After all, she or he was a dance consultant for one whole episode.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per LISTCRUFT. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Primefac, Northamerica1000, Ajf773, Clarityfiend, I've also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sesame Street crew (as suggested above by AJ), Thanks, – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not encyclopedic. This isn't for gathering crew credits for television shows. Let IMDb handle that task. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 03:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Aditya Dahal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

All references are in non- reliable sources. WP:BEFORE turns up credulous reports of amazing psychic powers but no actual evidence. A large portion of the current article has no cites and the sources of the claims are not verifiable. Fails the Biographies of Living Persons policy and even general notability is very doubtful. While it is undoubtedly possible for fraudulent psychics, etc. to become notable (e.g., Jeane Dixon), the coverage of this boy does not appear to rise to the necessary level as yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Eggishorn ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Far below needed source level for an article on a seven year old. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete At a minimum, WP:TNT as the current article is just that bad. Sources are iffy at best and would cover 3-4 sentence article. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Google boys" are a fad in India, but all, including this one, have no serious coverage that could enable an objective article. WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage is not enough. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete Oh God, another BLP of a minor being used by adults. Can't we just nuke these on sight? Mangoe ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not seem to be notable. The current article is bad enough that, if he ever does become notable, it would be better to start fresh with a completely new article. Cardamon ( talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Just awful. Neutrality ^talk 06:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per all of the above. In reply to Mangoe, I don't think WP:A7 applies here, and don't feel any possible new CSD criteria for BLPs of minors would get consensus. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Is "blech" a valid rationale for deletion? It should be. Carrite ( talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Preludes (Messiaen). There appears to be some content in this article that's not present at the redirect target but yes, power~enwiki is correct, this could have been handled at the article's talk page. A Train ^talk 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Un reflet dans le vent (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There is already an article about the set of 8 preludes that contain this piece. This article adds nothing to it. Squandermania ( talk) 15:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Preludes (Messiaen). This possibly could have been done without an AfD. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Wayne Sisk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Wayne Sisk was a junior NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank ( sergeant) and lack of high-level awards (highest Bronze Star Medal) make him non-notable under WP:SOLDIER; he was mentioned in Ambrose's Band of Brothers as being involved in the killing of a Nazi officer in Austria under orders of the company commander, Ronald Speirs. Post-war, he was ordained as a Baptist minister but, outside his local area in West Virginia, enjoyed little notability; his wife appeared in local news stories more often than Sisk himself. He was portrayed in nine of the ten episodes of the miniseries. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- I see nothing notable in his military career; and that as a Baptist minister looks equally ordinary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete being the subject of a miniseries alone does not make someone notable, and nothing else even comes close. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert M Howard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Businessman who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Appears to be written by an editor with an undeclared conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, possibly WP:TOOSOON. A lot of the references aren't about him at all, and the references to him being CEO of Telligent aren't enough for WP:GNG. There is a Bloomberg bio [26] but that's about it. Regarding a redirect to Telligent; he is at a new company which may become notable, so a redirect may be inappropriate. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard Prior (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is sourced entirely to 2 primary sources, and the google hits aren't very promising. In addition, an editor claiming to be the subject insists that the information is largely incorrect; an assertion that is difficult to dismiss without quality sources to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment See this -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. 2 refs neither of which assert notability, the article appears mundane. Szzuk ( talk) 19:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete LOL, When I first saw this I thought not only does he deserve an article, but he was pretty damn funny too. Then I realized the spelling was different (not Richard Pryor). Unlike Richard Pryor, this has no sources and doesn't clear GNG.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Rusf10: Don't feel bad. My first interaction with this article was when a person claiming to be the BLP in question asked for information to be changed. I had literally started to comment "RUN!! It's a zombie!!" before I noticed the spelling and checked the article. Luckily, I hadn't hit "Publish changes" yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nothing here suggests particular notability. Dunarc ( talk) 16:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've found some local news articles such as [27] and there are mentions in news articles outside of the region such as Washington Post [28] and The News-Gazette / Champaign-Urbana [29] The stuff the editor wrote saying things were incorrect were mainly concerning his degrees at educational institutions. He still was a conductor for Atlanta, Emory, and LaGrange [30] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was procedural close. I didn’t even find evidence that this page ever existed. I have, however, flagged your user page per U1, if that’s what you want. ( non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

ChristiWilken (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is useless ChristiWilken ( talk) 12:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Lemon Wallet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets available, this defunct wallet does not stand out. Notability not established. Ysangkok ( talk) 12:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep has plenty of reliable sources coverage in the article such as CBS, USA Today, CNN, PC Magazine, NYT blog (blogs are allowed from NYT). I don't see any mention of bitcoin in the article. Atlantic306 ( talk) 13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources, some of which include [31], [32], [33]. Many additional sources are also available. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The sources present are enough to show passing WP:GNG. It is worth noting, this article from The Wall Street Journal and this from TechCrunch are substantial enough above any threshold to call them passing mention. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Too much coverage to delete, meets WP:GNG easily. scope_creep ( talk) 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I've never heard of this product, but independent reliable sources clearly have. That's what counts. Nick Moyes ( talk) 11:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Surpasses WP:GNG due the the amount of reliable sources that have mentioned it in detail. As nominator said there are hundreds of Bitcoin wallets out there, but how many of them actually have been mentioned as much as this one has by news sources and such. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Michael Steinger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a non-notable lawyer who unsuccessfully represented a client in an action against a celebrity, and failed to win a nomination to the Senate. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The rule of law is important and he does appear to be politically/civically engaged, but given the overabundance of lawyers now, he really has to separate himself from the pack. He fails to do this. I don't see adequate in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Knox490 ( talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete defeated candidates for state legislature are not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Where I live I see his commercials (and just recently I hired a lawyer like Steinger to represent me after I was struck by a car while out for my morning walk) for his law firm all the time. That said, not notable lawyer and failed politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment An article on this person was previously deleted after an AFD. The discussion can be found here. I nominated this article for speedy deletion and suggest both articles be SALTED if this edition is deleted again. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Condorito. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Pelotillehue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely WP:INUNIVERSE (except for the first sentence), unreferenced, some WP:OR, no indication of real-world notability. At the very least, could be redirected to Condorito along with the other two town names mentioned in the article; that’s why I didn’t PROD it. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - Not independently notable, but is a plausible search term. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Ticket Galaxy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

no indication of either CORP or GNG here. This is simply an advitorial John from Idegon ( talk) 10:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promo 'cruft on a nn business. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rob McVeigh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR. Run-of-the-mill actor. Edwardx ( talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete an unsuccessful reality show contestant, who has done some theatre performing, but nothing that rises to the level of being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yoshiki Nakajima (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Non-notable voice actor whose filmography consists of minor roles. No reliable third-party sources cited to support any claims. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NOTE. Disputed prod — Farix ( t |  c) 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby miss fortune} 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom: Looking through the ANN bold entries:
  • Beyblade: Shogun Steel - Torimaki E not listed in characters on the wikipedia article
  • Dynamic Chord - yuki - not listed in characters on the wikipedia article
  • The Idolmaster SideM - not listed in List of The Idolmaster characters
  • RWBY - Neptune - recurring but not starring character
  • Sengoku Night Blood - not a notable title

So based on this, he does not meet WP:ENT Chances of finding featured news articles about him are slim. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep or draftify - Considering his lack of major roles, he arguably does not pass WP:ENT. He does however, been covered in at least two Japanese-language sources: this and this. Both are interviews, and consensus is mixed on whether or not interviews are enough to establish notability, but these do exist. Non-interview sources were harder to find, but some do exist, like this one. With the sourcing available and the fact that Japanese voice acting coverage can be limited to begin with, the coverage out there might just be enough to pass at the very least WP:GNG. If consensus is not to keep, I would suggest draftifying the article instead of complete deletion in case he gets more roles and/or gets more coverate in the future. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 22. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply