The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Promotional page, created by the same person or an affiliate ( User:Nischal007). No claims of significance are verified by any reliable sources. Of the 5 references, 4 are self published. External links are full of social media pages. Jevansen ( talk) 23:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I don't see this as having an overly promotional tone, but it's certainly a vanity page, and I find no evidence of the subject meeting any inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found.-- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable computer programmer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Cann't find reliable source. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. Article can be recreated as a draft. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

This is a non-notable movie, characterized by its producers as "ultra-low budget", that has not even begun principal photography. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, in particular WP:NFF, which states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Principal photography not yet begun, and is not scheduled until next month. It's WP:CRYSTAL to presume that once filmed and released, it will get significant coverage from unaffiliated independent sources. It's not clear that a theatrical release is planned (although the overcrowding page refers to a planned L.A. premiere); a DVD is planned, and it may well be a direct-to-DVD movie.

I'm going to be a little verbose here, given the prior PROD and the subsequent discussions with the principal editor.

I PRODded it about a week ago, and it was dePRODded by its principal editor, Lyrda ( talk · contribs). I will note that in my PROD, I had construed its crowdfunding effort to be to raise funds to make the film. Lyrda has pointed out that the crowdfunding effort was not to raise money to make the film, but to pay for acting coaching for the child actress Kristina Pimenova.

That being said, there still is no indication of notability. Nearly all the references in the article are to material generated by the production itself: Reigning Entertainment, the production company; its Indiegogo crowdfunding page; a quotation of the film's press release at Horror Movies CA; the film's casting call notice at backstage.com; the film's "official newsletter"; and the film's facebook page.

There are three sources that are, on their face, independent of the subject, but provide no basis for notability: A paywalled Posh Kids Magazine article is cited for the proposition that the child-model who stars in the film is making a career move into acting; a decaymag.com article that reports on the crowdfunding effort, but appears to be just a blog; and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for the inconsequential fact that the production company does, in fact, exist and is incorporated in the state.

None of this adds up to notability.

The IMDB page for the movie has very little information on it; IMDb does not carry full entries for films in pre-production, pretty much for the same reasons Wikipedia normally does not.

The principal editor is a WP:SPA account, whose edits have concentrated on this article, a now-deleted article on its actress Kristina Pimenova, and that article's AfD. When I inquired as to a conflict of interest, she said no, and I take her at her word.

There's more discussion on the article's talk page, which may be informative.

I want to note that this AfD is not reflective on the principal editor or her work; it is merely an effort to limit Wikpedia's coverage to notable material. TJRC ( talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: I did not write the deleted article Kristina Pimenova, which was in poor shape. Neither am I a single-purpose account. I have started two articles, edited and commented on ten others, and participated in project and help discussions. Not that there is anything wrong with editors focusing on a single topic, as proposer seems to suggest. Furthermore, to randomly suggest that just because a new user began at topic X, they must have a conflict of interest with topic X, is uncivil and no testimony of good faith. Can we please discuss the article without attempts to put the editor in a bad light? Lyrda ( talk) 12:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: IMDb carries whatever people enter into it and gets accepted. It does not distinguish in that regard between films by stage of development. There is more information in IMDb-pro, but IMDb is not put forward as the source of this article. Instead, there are nine other sources. Lyrda ( talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: This is a low-budget film, not an 'ultra-low-budget film' whatever that may be. Proposer wants to suggest that this is an amateur project. It is not, this is a professional movie with notable, prize-winning producers and cast. Lyrda ( talk) 12:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: Proposer failed to notify Wikiproject Film even though participants are aware of this article. It is therefore unlikely that this proposal will attract sufficient attention from users familiar with notability and guidance relating to this topic. Lyrda ( talk) 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

There is no requirement to notify relevant Wikiprojects when an Article for Deletion discussion is started. Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It is nonetheless the appropriate and civil course of action. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors Lyrda ( talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Contrary to what proposer repeatedly suggests, I did not start this article gazing into the future. In my opinion the topic is already notable in this stage of development, based on the notability of the people involved and evidenced by sources included and not included (social media buzz) in the article. Lyrda ( talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete A film that may or may not be in production, supported by references that do not collectively help the subject to meet the General Notability Guideline. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON - if the film is ever released, and if it gets a sufficient quantity of coverage in reliable, independent sources (not IMDB, Backstage or other self-published sources) then I look forward to reading about it here. Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Backstage, Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA and Posh Kids Magazine are all reliable, independent sources. At Backstage, a team of casting experts review each casting notice posted to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the project. Lyrda ( talk) 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's a Casting Notice, which cannot be considered Independent by any stretch of the imagination. Would the casting notice be there if the people involved with the project hadn't written it? No it wouldn't. Exemplo347 ( talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Backstage reviews all notices and deletes entries of insufficient quality. That's what makes it independent and why I included it as a source, rather than e.g. exploretalent.com. Please note that there are three more independent sources as well. Lyrda ( talk) 13:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

As you're clearly an editor with an undeclared Conflict of Interest, the time I'm going to spend responding to you is going to be very limited. You'll get a lot more time & good faith from me if you read WP:COI and declare your Conflict of Interest openly and honestly. Anyway, the sources: Source 1 - Company website - not independent. Source 2 - Indiegogo crowdfunding project - not independent. Source 3 - report on crowdfunding campaign written by someone who states they are an "independent movie blogger" - fails WP:RS. Source 4 - this source is not about the film. Source 5 - press release - not independent. Source 6 - casting call - not independent. Source 7 - newsletter written by the company - not independent. Source 8 - about the setting up of a company - not about the film itself. Source 9 - a Facebook post - fails WP:RS. That's really all I have to say about the sourcing - read through WP:RS yourself if you have any queries. Exemplo347 ( talk) 13:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

So we're back at attacking the editor. Meanwhile, it's obvious then that you have no idea of Wikipedia's key concepts, nor do you seem familiar with the topic. You appear to be a hit-and-run deletionist, just like proposer, so I'm clearly wasting my time here. Lyrda ( talk) 13:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That doesn't address what I've said. Exemplo347 ( talk) 13:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You didn't say anything coherent. Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you still think Backstage, who have been in business for 50 years, is not independent despite its review board. Lyrda ( talk) 14:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd ask that you remain civil during this discussion - ad hominem isn't your friend here. Anyway, as I've already pointed out, the casting call posted by the company in Backstage is not an independent source because it was posted by the company. The fact that it has been checked by Backstage before they agreed to post it is not a factor. I've pointed out WP:RS to you twice now - you should read it before asking anything further about sources because it answers every possible query. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You might want to stop attacking me, then. The available guidance on independence is WP:IS, an essay, not WP:RS, a guideline. Bottom line is that independence pertains to the source, not the content or how it got there. Backstage reviews all entries, that's all that matters. IMDb does not. Similarly, a collective of film reviewers that decide to build on some press releases, but not others, is also an independent source. Reliability is another matter. Backstage is reliable because it has a reputation of good fact-checking. Lyrda ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to fixate on whether or not a Casting Call is a reliable, independent source. The simple fact is, the General Notability Guideline hasn't been met. This isn't personal, so behaving like it is won't help matters. If you can improve the article without using unreliable, non-independent sources then do so. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It would have been more civil for you to say "OK, you've convinced me about Backstage, how about the rest." Perhaps you could tell me why, in your opinion, Posh Kids Magazine is neither reliable nor independent? Also, notability of the topic is unrelated to the current state of the article, and it's not my personal burden either to improve it. Lyrda ( talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You haven't convinced me. A casting call, written by the company producing a film, is never - under any circumstances - an independent, reliable source. I hope that clears up any apparent confusion. Exemplo347 ( talk) 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Obviously the casting call itself is dependent, just like the press release (they're both still reliable though). The source, however, is not the casting call, but Backstage. Backstage is independent. How about Posh Kids Magazine? Lyrda ( talk) 15:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I've already answered. "Source 4 - this source is not about the film" Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It doesn't have to be, as long as it's relevant to the topic. Lyrda ( talk) 15:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Please can you link to a policy or guideline that supports this? Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you? You're the one making a claim that goes against common sense. Hint: it's not in WP:RS. Lyrda ( talk) 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note Clearly the article creator is taking this a bit too personally. I'd suggest stepping back from this discussion. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  I think not. Look, you are perfectly welcome to simply state: "There is coverage, but in my opinion it's not significant enough." Instead you are continuously attacking the editor, and you come up with a series of questionable statements about sources that you are unable or unwilling to explain. Those are unacceptable tactics in a discussion, and should not be left unaddressed. Lyrda ( talk) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - going through the sources I came to the same conclusion as Exemplo347 above. Since they have already discussed each one of the sources I won't repeat what they already said; suffice it to say that neither WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG is met. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The current sources are of pretty little consequence, and basically universally don't count as independent, secondary or reliable by Wikipedia standards, and I'm not finding really anything online that does. I appreciate Lyrda's enthusiasm, but they probably need a bit more experience, since a lot of their argument rests on fairly run-of-the-mill misunderstanding regarding what these types of terms specifically mean on Wikipedia, versus what they mean in a more general sense. I would encourage them to visit the Teahouse if they have specific questions or need particular guidance, and to take some time editing on subjects other than those that they very likely would not know existed in the first place if they did not have some sort of conflict of interest. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  I do not have a conflict of interest with this topic, and everything I've said about sources is supported by existing guidance. Lyrda ( talk) 16:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  I would appreciate an explanation as to why you deem none of the nine sources reliable, since WP:RS seems to indicate that they are. This has not yet been discussed. Above we have only talked about independence. Lyrda ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. This looks like a cut-and-dry case. Also, the article's principal editor doesn't (yet) have a complete understanding of WP:RS as has been made clear in comments above. Note that this deletion doesn't preclude the article coming back once reliable sources become available. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  I find it disheartening that people keep claiming that I don't understand WP:RS, yet nobody is willing to provide any insights. Surely, if sources are so cut-and-dryly unreliable, it should be easy enough to explain. Btw, if we end up with a conclusion to delete, please move it back to Draft instead, so I (and others) can keep working on it. Production starts in less than 3 weeks, new sources are bound to appear very soon. Lyrda ( talk) 17:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  I would ordinarily be happy to discuss, but from what I gather above, there seems to be too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT coming from your corner. Also, I am convinced you actually haven't read through WP:RS because barely anything you have stated reflects it. I recommend actually reading it and asking questions at WP:Help desk or elsewhere on points that don't make complete sense. As for userfying or moving an article to draft, that option is certainly available to you. But on this "new sources are bound to appear very soon", I'd like to know where you buy your crystal balls. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  In my experience, films that are talked about a lot even before production has started, will continue to get attention as development continues. Especially with a high-profile cast and notable producers. No crystal ball is needed for that, but it's allowed in this context (my personal expectation that there will be stuff to add to the article). I read WP:RS thoroughly many times over already before moving the article into main space. It contains no guidance with respect to independence, the only thing discussed so far. I am ready to discuss reliability. Please explain to me why, in your opinion, for instance, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is not a reliable source regarding the existence of a LLC. Lyrda ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Your experience as you state it is irrelevant to the determinations made about notability. We will not litigate our policies/guidelines here. As for independence, I am satisfied that other experienced editors have explained this reasonably well to you, and that you refuse to acknowledge what is fairly straightforward. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note Please be aware that non-neutral canvassing appears to be taking place here. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Bringing this discussion to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film is not canvassing, nor is this a request for a particular outcome. Lyrda ( talk) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep came to the article for more information because I was just reading a news article today about the production. Wikipedia:Does deletion help?.-- Moxy ( talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That's just another reprint of a press release, though. The article has to have secondary sources that talk specifically about the film, to show notability. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Not here much at these deletion debates ..as an old timer this is a bad side of Wikipedia I try to avoid. Just have to say is it really best to leave our readers in the dark by deleting this article that clearly is getting views. Noting wrong ..as in non neutral etc.... just facts here. Not sure how giving our readers nothing will help them. Think of our readers always pls!! -- Moxy ( talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

There is no grave damage from not having an article about a movie that hasn't even began shooting yet, especially for which there is no WP:RS. As always, this can be userfied or moved to draft in case RS begins appearing, and if/when the article is reinstated, our dear readers who we very much adore can read the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This is one of the reasons Wikipedia is not the first stop for movie information...we are behind the rest of the world in this regard [1]. But you guys here deal with this all the time I guess and know best. As a history editor I find most movies sources low quality...so dont see a sourcing problem here news is news.-- Moxy ( talk) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This is not a future movie site -- it is an encyclopedia with long-held standards for inclusion. Once this movie attains notability (if it does), we'll have an article for it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

There is, however, a Category:Upcoming films with a multitude of entries, many of which have less information than this article. So clearly, a film doesn't have to be released in order to be notable. Lyrda ( talk) 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That obscures the overall problem here, that this article has no WP:RS while other upcoming films do. My point is that we don't have articles for future films just because they exist. Also, your statement about other articles having "less information" is unfortunately entirely irrelevant to this AfD, and is frankly your personal opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Can we discuss that please, because IMHO all the current sources are reliable. Lyrda ( talk) 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Moxy: Please read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and especially, reliable sources. That article fails as a reliable source, the underpinning of notability, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deletion is an important way to keep Wikipedia from becoming a vehicle for promotion, a soapbox, or a collection of trivia. Tapered ( talk) 07:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Please look @ What Wikipedia is not Tapered ( talk) 08:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note Posted Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_provided_for_The_Russian_Bride. Lyrda ( talk) 23:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Here from RSN. The reliability of sources when they are self-published is irrelevant for a *notability* discussion. Notability is demonstrated by *independant* reliable *secondary* sources on the subject. Primary sources (press releases, official websites, crowfunding pages etc) may be useable in the article but do not demonstrate notability (as every primary source thinks they are notable). At best there are passing mentions with no real coverage. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Reliability does not pertain to the press release, but to the previewers that used it. The same goes for the casting call (Backstage checks and reviews all entries and is considered very reliable). The article has five completely independent sources. Only one of them is indirect. Lyrda ( talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Reprinting press releases is not significant coverage. At best there is enough sourcing to say 'this exists'. Not everything that exists has a wikipedia article. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks, the significance of the coverage is indeed what this discussion should be about. But also, what about the involvement of notable people (several with their own Wikipedia article)? Does their notablity carry over, as I stated on the article's talk page? Lyrda ( talk) 12:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That is a fair question. Unfortunately the answer is no - notability does not carry over. If this film had had significant importance in the career of any of the notable people involved it could have been mentioned in the article about them (with reliable independent sources, if any such are found), but at this point that does not appear to be the case. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That is an essay, which I happen to disagree with. The film is certainly important in the career of Kristina Pimenova, see Posh Kids Magazine (hence its inclusion as a source). Lyrda ( talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The problem you're going to have is that the Administrator who closes this discussion will agree with the long-standing consensus that these "essays", guidelines and policies represent. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The administrator's only job is to establish if consensus has been reached. Please stop disrupting the flow of the discussion. Lyrda ( talk) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That's not correct - they will weigh the consensus of the discussion against the existing policies and guidelines, and will not take into account any personal opinions that do not align with the policies and guidelines that are relevant here - WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You may want to read WP:AFD/AI. And WP:NFILM points the user to WP:N for upcoming films. Once again, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the actual content of policies and guidelines. Lyrda ( talk) 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Do you mean WP:NFF? Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

No. Read the guideline, for a change. Lyrda ( talk) 16:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NFF is a guideline, and it says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NFF points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films which says: "If the film fails to meet basic community-wide standards such as verifiability, notability, and no original research, it may be prodded, AfD'd, or speedy deleted, as appropriate." Lyrda ( talk) 16:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you've found something that will enable you to agree that this discussion is appropriate. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films: "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines. This may also include related articles which are primarily about the film's content, such as character pages. For these articles, the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot." Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

My guess is that there were articles for parts 2 and 3 of The Hobbbit long before production. Whatever a guideline may say, the policy outranks it. That's why the project page points to it, and why I was discussing notability with other users, before you disrupted the process again. Lyrda ( talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Commenting in an Article for Deletion discussion is never "disruption" - even if you don't like what the comments say. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in secondary sources and it does not comply with WP:NF. The only aspect which gave me pause to think is the involvement of Corbin Bernsen but not all his work is regarded as notable and it is unclear at this stage whether it's a notable aspect of his career. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  There are at least four notable people involved with the topic. For instance, producer Philip J Day has won many awards. Do you have a suggestion on what to do with the information if the article gets deleted? Add it to each of the separate articles? The film itself doesn't have to be notable to be added to existing articles. Lyrda ( talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  As above: no, not unless it is in fact an important/notable part of the person's career, and not unless there are reliable independent sources discussing the film and its importance for the producer/actor. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Agreeing with Bonadea here. Really though Lyrda, the answer to every question you have asked could have been found quite easily, by reading the links that people have been providing for you. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  As established repeatedly above, the links provided by you never contained what you claimed. We have now arrived at discussing notabilty, after all your nonsense with incorrectly calling sources not independent. Lyrda ( talk) 15:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Putting aside your ad hominem again, the link to WP:NFILM was provided very early on in this discussion. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Yes. But you should have mentioned WP:IS, which you conveniently forgot. Lyrda ( talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Lyrda it's clear the majority don't see the sources as making the article notable at this time. Not the end of the world.....just give it a few months till more is out about the film.-- Moxy ( talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Possibly, but it's still early days. We haven't seen many film experts yet, who e.g. can confirm that Decay Magazine, Dread Central and Horror Movies CA are reliable and carry weight. And it's not a vote, consensus is built on arguments. You made a good argument about the page getting many visits. Lyrda ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Just need time - The Russian Bride 2017/Кристина Пименова and Kristina Pimenova //the russian bride//-- Moxy ( talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The trailer and other clips have been viewed over 75.000 times already. Then again, editors opined that 4 million followers is still no indication of notability. Something is horribly wrong here. Lyrda ( talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note I have expanded and updated the article, and will of course continue to do so as I find more information. Lyrda ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Note Added a new source that appeared today on deadline.com. There are now 13 sources, 4 more than in the discussion above. Lyrda ( talk) 23:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Review of new sources 1 - From press release. 2 - From press release (the text "From Press Release" was the clue). 3 - Instagram hashtag search. 4 - Youtube search result. Exemplo347 ( talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  They usually are. The point is, they see many press releases and find only some of them notable enough to deserve attention. And social media searches provide information on notability, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. Lyrda ( talk) 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment from nom; I don't have much to add to what I put in the nomination, but did want to address a couple things raised above.

IMDB's coverage of pre-production films is limited; and it distinguishes between pre-production (where "the project is financed, locations are being scouted, people are being hired and production is imminent with a fairly firm start date for filming") and development, i.e. earlier than pre-production. As a movie-specialized website, unlike Wikipedia, IMDB has a more liberal threshold for inclusion. More at [2].

The characterization as "ultra-low-budget" is not mine; it comes from the film's production company itself, from the casting call used as a reference in the article. SAG-AFTRA defines "low-budget" as " under $2.5 million" and "ultra-low-budget" as " under $250,000". TJRC ( talk) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That was the budget at the time of the casting call, before several investors joined. Lyrda ( talk) 19:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: From WP:WHYN: We require significant coverage in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. (my bold) The page is well beyond half a paragraph. It has more information already than many pages about released films (and attracts more views as well). So in terms of WP:N, the coverage is significant. I would like to know what WP:N criterion then, if any, is not yet met. Lyrda ( talk) 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, you've skipped over this (also from WP:N) - "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, because you are the only one who claims the sources are not independent, and we have discussed that ad nauseam already. Lyrda ( talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I see at least two other editors who have pointed out concerns about the independence of the sourcing. Have a read through this page again - I'm not "the only one" by any stretch of the imagination - putting your fingers in your ears & pretending you don't hear valid objections from experienced editors is a waste of your energy. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Your point of view has been clear from the beginning, thanks. Lyrda ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

My point of view is this, and only this: I'm here to improve Wikipedia, as are most editors. If an article does not meet the General Notability Guideline and the specific additional notability criteria that apply to it ( WP:NFILM in this case) then it has no place here. This isn't a personal thing - I've participated in a large number of these discussions, it's a routine process that has no reflection on the creators of articles. It's about policy, nothing more. But, I'm guessing you'll take this response personally too. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Notability doesn't pertain to the article, but to the topic. There is more information that I haven't been able to add yet because of this Afd. The topic needs to satisfy either WP:N or WP:NFILM, not both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. My point of view is that it easily satisfies WP:N. Lyrda ( talk) 21:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you've misunderstood. WP:GNG is the one that must be satisfied. The others are just a bonus. Every single article that Wikipedia has must meet the threshold in the General Notability Guideline, it's not optional and I can't see how you can think that it is after it's been pointed out to you by so many people. Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Citing WP:N:: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and (...) (my bold). Lyrda ( talk) 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

And the first part of WP:NFILM says exactly what the GNG says - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Come on now, be realistic. Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It's also important not to confuse a presumption of notability with a determination of notability. A presumption just provides a starting point; it's not a conclusion. Presumptions can be rebutted. A subject that is presumed notable may not, on examination, be notable. It's not by any means a guarantee. All persons charged with crimes start out with a presumption of innocence, yet a large number of them are found guilty. TJRC ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Good point. Sometimes there are lots of IRS's but without any encyclopedic content. Lyrda ( talk) 22:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not convinced that these sources provide the independent in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG. - KH-1 ( talk) 00:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  WP:GNG does not ask for in-depth coverage, only for significant coverage. WP:RS specifies when it's significant, too: an article longer than a single paragraph must be possible. The article is already much longer than that. Lyrda ( talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per all the discussion above. @ Lyrda: I admire your persistence, and I am sure this is going to be an excellent film--I might even go see it. But we are not here to promote the film. I suggest you: (1) copy all of the Wikitext here (and at the article) to your sandbox before it gets deleted, which almost surely is going to happen, no matter how much more your push (2) Look at the films that *have* passed WP:AfC and survived WP:AfD and see what sources were necessary to keep them alive. At some point this film might get the WP:RS it needs, so if you do that, then you'll know what is required and you can submit it to WP:AfC and see if you can get it approved then. I suggest you thank everyone for their time considering your article, apologize for any frustration you might have caused, promise to do some of what I suggest, and it will likely be well received. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you eventually get what you are looking for and don't get too frustrated... -- David Tornheim ( talk) 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

1. There seems to be agreement that the article is well-formed and neutrally written, and contains verifiable facts.
2. There seems to be agreement that the topic (an upcoming film, yet to be produced and released) fails WP:NFILM.
3. In discussion is therefore whether the topic satisfies WP:N, and since no other specific guideline applies, therefore WP:GNG.
4. To satisfy WP:GNG, i.e. to be considered notable, the topic (not: the article) needs sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to enable the writing of an article, rather than just a few lines.
5. The sources originally include Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA, Posh Kids Magazine.
6. New sources added during this Afd include Deadline Hollywood, Dread Central.
7. Exemplo347 believes that none of the sources is independent.Struck this disingenuous summary. Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Stevietheman thinks that none of the sources is reliable.
9. Timothyjosephwood judges the sources to be of little consequence.
10. Bonadea and Only in death claim a lack of secondary sources.
11. TJRC^disputed and Betty Logan are of the opinion that the sources provide insufficient independent, reliable coverage.
12. Moxie sees nothing wrong with the sources and considers the topic notable, also because of the number of page views.
13. Lyrda has the view that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and finds the topic notable.

Except for Exemplo347's view, there has been very little discussion and much unwillingness to elaborate. The expanded version of the article has not been seen by most participants. Note that a mention in Deadline Hollywood is a big thing, their article has been copied dozens of times within 24 hours. Lyrda ( talk) 22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think this is an accurate summary of at least my position, as stated here and on the talk page. I have not seen any significant coverage of the film in sources unrelated to the film. Almost all the sources are from the producers, either directly or indirectly by quoting material provided by producers. There are a few reliable or presumably reliable sources, but they aren't on the film. For example, the fact that the production company is licensed to do business in the state and reflected as such in the state's roster of companies has nothing to do with the film. The fact that the model who is the actress in the film said in an interview that she wanted to go into acting has nothing to do with the film. All the sources that are actually about the film are from the film. In short, my position is that the film has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'll not specifically comment on the accuracy of Lyrda's characterization of the other editors' positions; but in general, I would encourage the closing admin to look to the editors' own comments, and not the putative summary above. TJRC ( talk) 22:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Amended. Lyrda ( talk) 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Still not an accurate summary. I don't think this summary adds anything useful, except a call to all the other editors to come in and have a dispute within a dispute. I'm not going to continue that further. I'll simply note it here and rely on the closing admin to look to the actual editors' comments rather than a characterization made by an involved and entrenched editor. TJRC ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to see that you're back at attacking the editor. Lyrda ( talk) 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note I do not agree to having my words paraphrased and interpreted, and I also don't agree with the actual interpretation. However, I wholly trust that the reviewing administrator will disregard secondary interpretations and look at what each participant in the discussion has actually posted. -- bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Oh boy. This was hard to follow on PC and is almost indecipherable on mobile. Definitely my bad for not watchlist in this and replying to the follow up questions. I'll try to re-review things, but assuming the trend does swing toward delete, this might be a really good candidate for moving to a draft rather than deleting. Being an unreleased film, when this discussion happens may be just as important as anything else, and it may easily pass in a few months or a year. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Because several new sources have appeared during this Afd, and most participants haven't commented on the expanded version of the article, I propose to let the Afd run for another week. I hope that we can then discuss the reliability and significance of the sources, which hasn't happened yet, perhaps on a source-by-source basis. Now that we're here, we might as well be thorough. Otherwise we may need to do it all over again a few weeks from now. Lyrda ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I think most editors are simply refraining from bludgeoning the process. It's not at all unusual for an article to continue to be edited during the AFD process. The basis for the AFD is not, after all the state of the article, but the notability of the subject of the article. TJRC ( talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

True, but the notability of the topic has increased during the Afd due to e.g. the Deadline Hollywood source, which didn't exist until yesterday. Lyrda ( talk) 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Oppose dragging out the process. The "new source" the author mentions is yet another press release. My objections have been made very clear - a failure of the subject to meet the GNG (not purely limited to independence, but also the reliability of the sources and the significance of the coverage) and WP:NFF (no new film that has not yet commenced principal photography can meet WP:NFF). That, my esteemed fellow editors, is an accurate summary of my opinion. Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  As explained above, WP:NFF is irrelevant. Obviously WP:NFILM cannot be satisfied since it's for films that have been released, you don't have to repeat that over and over. Looking at WP:GNG, can you please specify which sources you consider unreliable, so we can finally begin to discuss that? Lyrda ( talk) 01:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  My objections to each source have been pointed out already in this discussion. If you want to argue about them again, save some time and re-read your own responses to me in your head. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Your objections were about independence. You didn't get much support for that, so indeed we do not need to discuss that again (you are still confusing source with source material). I was asking about reliability since you just brought that up. Lyrda ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  My comment from 5 days ago points out a number of unreliable sources. Read through the page again, have fun - I'm not repeating myself again just to get the same "La la la!!! I can't hear you!!" response. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  And there we go again, attacking the editor. You mentioned two, with little explanation, so I will assume then that it's just about these two, Decay Magazine and Facebook. Lyrda ( talk) 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Assume anything you want - the closing Administrator will read through everything thoroughly. Exemplo347 ( talk) 02:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Unreliable according to Examplo347, but that is not in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE, which even explicitly mentions Facebook. The source is only used to establish the existence of the trailer, i.e. information about themselves. Lyrda ( talk) 02:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Unreliable according to Examplo347, who says it's a random blogger. It is not, Decay Magazine is a venue that specializes in crowdfunding campaign news and indie genre film analysis. The author is a staff correspondent. They may not be the New York Times, but they don't have a poor reputation for fact-checking. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. The source is only used to cite their comment on the film's theme. Lyrda ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note There is some useful input now at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Lyrda ( talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sources cited not reliable. Search tools produce no dedicated articles/websites from a reliable source. Not notable. PLEASE delete before this AfD page eats up all of Wikipedia's bandwidth. Tapered ( talk) 07:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Can you please elaborate? Why, for instance, do you think that Deadline Hollywood is unreliable? Why does reliability depend on 'dedication' to the topic? This is not a vote. Lyrda ( talk) 10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Lyrda's verbose and endless postings are approaching disruptive editing. Tapered ( talk) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Official websites are often poor sources for the plot of any given work, as they lack in detail and may have a promotional tone. As the company's identification of its own productions, they may be used as primary sources. Primary sources are not banned, but should be used with caution.
• Decay is an online magazine, established in 2014. It describes itself as a magazine devoted to the horror, thriller and sci-fi genres. Based on the contents, it also includes some fantasy topics. It has sections on Conan the Barbarian, part of the sword and sorcery subgenre. I am not certain if it counts as a reliable source, but I do not see anything particularly objectionable here.
• Posh Kids is a magazine devoted to fashion, entertainment, and lifestyle. Nothing too unusual here, and it seems to have interviews with a number of actors.
• Horror Movies CA is a website devoted to horror films, established in 2005. It has numerous news article about the genre, a number of reviews, and articles on related topics. I am not certain who owns the website. I don't see ownership information.
• Backstage (magazine) might be a better source. Established in 1960, it is an entertainment industry-related magazine. Its intended audience is not the general public, but people already working in film, television, and theatre who are seeking information on casting, job opportunities, and career advice.
• Official newsletters are primary sources and may be biased or unreliable. On the topic of funding, there have been cases where film companies published inaccurate information on their funding sources, overstated or understated their budgets, and broke a number of industry regulations when in came to their accounting. Several of our articles on film companies focus on cases which went to court, or led to the company's demise.
• The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is a primary source on employment, professional licensing, construction, and commerce in the state of Michigan. I would consider it reliable, but it is not exactly a specialized resource on film.
• I may be incorrect here, but I have been working on film articles for a number of years. Most of our film articles do not even mention information on the trailer of any given film. I am not certain why should we include trailer information here. Dimadick ( talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) copied from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Lyrda ( talk) 10:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Dimadick: Do you agree with the re-posting of your comments from the RSN into this discussion here? Exemplo347 ( talk) 11:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Founder and team are mentioned here. Same type of source as Decay Magazine, but it has been around longer and is a size larger. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. Lyrda ( talk) 11:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an artist, which states and single-sources the fact that she exists but fails to contain any actual substance beyond the fact that she exists. There's the generic claim that she's "award-winning", which is enough of a claim of significance to stave off speedy deletion, but the article fails to name or source what award(s) she purportedly won. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which an artist becomes entitled to have an article just because she exists -- an actual notability claim, and the reliable sourcing to support it, have to be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There's a mention of her here, she made the cover to Joel Baetz (2009). Canadian Poetry from World War I: An Anthology. Oxford University Press. ISBN  978-0-19-543171-1., and she's mentioned in Repère (in French). Vol. 2. Services documentaires Multimedia. 2005. pp. 1435–., but that's about it. Fails [[ WP:GNG]]/[[ WP:BASIC]]/[[ WP:NARTIST]], del per policy. — Sam Sailor 04:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable painter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete no significant sources found that would establish WP:GNG. BTW, John Pack Lambert, have you considered including a reason in your comment now and then, instead of just "non-notable"? Just curious. 198.58.162.176 ( talk) 05:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there is nothing in the article to give a hint to notability, and I am not finding enough to establish notability as an artist or under WP:GNG from the links at the top of the page. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.— CaroleHenson  (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Deleted as A7 by User:Bbb23 ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. I had trouble finding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete under WP:A7 - I'm not sure why an AfD discussion was started, when there's a Speedy Deletion tag already present at the top of the article. Exemplo347 ( talk) 22:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This nomination and the SD nomination happened virtually simultaneously. The SD tag wasn't there when I hit the XFD button in Twinkle. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 23:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete, early close as falls under WP:A7 – in reply to the comment above, Ahecht was probably setting up this AfD while the Speedy tag was put up. J 947 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete no notability, promotional. Adamtt9 ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note - Request for closure - article has been speedily deleted - I'd do it myself but I've !voted, so someone uninvolved needs to do it. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Coromantee#1736 Antigua slave rebellion. It's up to editors whether there are enough sources for a mention of this person in this or another article, but we seem to have consensus that there's not enough sourcing for an article.  Sandstein  14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Mulatto Jack (  | 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 historical person. Most of the article consists of un-cited general statements about Black Irish people in general, or the Klass plot in general. No one named "Mulatto Jack" is even mentioned in the sources cited in the "references" section, and the quotation in the section titled "Jack's fate" appears to be the full extent of the historical record of this person. This falls far short of what would be required for notability. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete or possibly redirect to Coromantee#1736 Antigua slave rebellion. Gaspar does talk about him, perhaps not in the sources cited but multiple times in Gaspar, David Barry. Bondmen and rebels: A study of master-slave relations in Antigua. Duke University Press, 1993. If/when an article is written about the 1736 Antiqua slave rebellion, that would be the sensible direction for a redirect to point. However, other Mulatto Jack's exist, google books gives a number of references to a child of the Custis family (in-laws to the first US president), so I don't know if a redirect makes sense given that as a search term, either individual could be meant, and redirecting could confuse the reader more. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - How did you come across this article, Fyddlestix? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 11:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Jack is indeed mentioned in the sources, Fyddlestix '20. iii. Antigua, 30 December 1736. ... A person called Mulatto Jack was brought before us as a criminal slave concerned in the plot: but he alleged that he was free born in Ireland and stolen thence and sold here as a slave. We think he proved his allegation, and we submit it to the legislature whether this mitigates his crime." [3] Certainly the article could be improved, but given the nature of Wikipedia I was hoping that someone could do just that, or indeed add more information about Jack, should it exist. As for "Non-notable", he does appear to be the first Afro-Irish person known by name, and that was the basis of my creating the article. Fergananim ( talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Have you got a source that says that? That probably would make him notable, but we'd need to see published RS that actually say that. Otherwise it's original research.

I did see the source you linked, it appears to be a single passing mention and thus does not impart notability - per WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, that requires significant and in-depth coverage in non-primary RS. This is a WP:PRIMARY source, after all, and those 2 sentences seem to be pretty much the full extent of what we know about him. The book linked by smmurphy above just refers to the same document, and includes Jack in a couple other lists of names (again, passing mentions only). So sure, he was tried as a member of the plot and there is a mention of him in that context, but he does not appear to have any particular notability beyond that. This is nowhere near enough coverage in RS to make him notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 14:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

How did you come across this article? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per arguments above. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 14:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Ram Lakhan 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod deleted, despite no content Boleyn ( talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This article was a redirect before the IP's recent changes. An option would be to return to the redirect with semi-protection as I doubt the IP would stop. Ravensfire ( talk) 22:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and creation protect the title, a sequel to or remake of Ram Lakhan (2016 film) is, it appears, for now only speculation. A return to the redirect to Rohit Shetty is not plausible, this search: "Rohit Shetty" "Ram Lakhan" suggest that Shetty's not going to do the remake. — Sam Sailor 04:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete based on information from sources found in the search suggested by Sailor Sam. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

New e-commerce site, in an article supported by 3 passing mentions and a short article in a small Swedish local newspaper. So no, not notable. Calton | Talk 15:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Draftify The cited sources show bare minimum WP:GNG notability, but there is a significance issue. Draftify to allow article creator opportunity to find better sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as simple advertising complete with the announcement-esque sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep reliable sources available about the subject. Bessloop ( talk) 10:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete  The news bubble present for the startup of a company is a WP:NOTNEWS problem, and the article does not make for a good encyclopedic topic.  Fails WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Interstellar (film)#Production design.  Sandstein  13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fancruft, based on the non-notable novelization of the movie Interstellar. I would suggest merging it to the Interstellar article, but there is very little of any value since none of the information other that the title sentence was actually reflected in the film. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline: Ranger is not notable for a stand-alone article, but since it is a fictional element in Interstellar, a categorised {{ R from fictional element}} to Interstellar (film)#Production design is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. — Sam Sailor 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

List of years in video games (  | 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 list brings an overview of random video games that have been released in a particular year. The early video games should be merged to List of early video games while the rest of the years already have their own articles. Furthermore, the games listed on this list do not really show it's significance on the year. Although the article was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 (resulting a keep), there is not any real development of the article outside of listing random video games released in a particular year. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is nothing but a completely arbitrary list of random video games. There doesn't seem to be any criteria for inclusion here, and the subject is of a scope that does not lend itself to one, massive list. The vast majority of the years included here already have much more succinct, better organized, articles on each individual year, and there is already an existing category that allows for easy navigation to these articles. The information on the handful of early years that don't have individual articles can be merged, as the nominator stated, to Early history of video games, assuming the information isn't already present there. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 21:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As per the two previous statements, and as they say, the early information can be merged into Early history of video games. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• It seems to me the games aren't random, but rather a selection of the most well-known games from that year. It's a useful list to me, it gives a good overview of history for games fans who will be familiar with a large proportion of the titles. ·· gracefool 💬 05:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• What qualifies a game to be "most well-known"? For example, in some years, a Lego Game appears (ex. Lego Star Wars in 2005) while other years lack the another game in the Lego series (ex. Lego Star Wars II in 2006). In another example, the list contains Sonic Riders in 2006 but not Sonic 06, an arguably better well-known game released that year. The list does not contain Sonic Generations, too. Even if this list does contain a series of the "most well-known" games, there are better lists for these types of games such as List of video games considered the best and individual articles listing video games by either decade (ex. 1990s in video gaming) or year (ex. 1996 in video gaming). Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unwieldy and vague. The history of video games is properly described in the various articles (for instance, History of video games, 1990s in video gaming, History of Nintendo) and this is an arbitrary list. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This list is simply redundant to more specific articles. It is also too vague and has no guidelines for inclusion. Nothing from this list should be merged into Early history of video games as most of the information is already included in the Early history of video games article and everything else is unsourced. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 18:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete The games listed under each year have been arbitrarily chosen.-- The1337gamer ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

5 Ways of Conceptualizing Data (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As already tagged, this is somebody's term paper, not a Wikipedia article. Hard to say whether it is original research or just regurgitation of the one source that it is largely based on. Either way it isn't a notable concept supported by reliable third-party sources. Lithopsian ( talk) Lithopsian ( talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:DEL14, a whole lot of synth, a MOS defying title, and no reliable sources to support that "Five ways of conceptualizing data" should be a notable subject in itself. — Sam Sailor 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete — this is original research Anirvan ( talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete the three people above have summed it up nicely Adamtt9 ( talk) 23:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete yet another case of a poor student who takes a class focused on creating new articles, leading to veteran editors spending time deleting them because they do not follow guidelines. W Nowicki ( talk) 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete – I came to this article because of a link to a dab page, but I agree with the above arguments for deletion. If the article were to be kept, it would require a substantial amount of cleanup. Not that needing cleanup is a reason for deletion, but .... jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There is a serious lack of sources and agree with the arguments above. Joseffritzl ( talk) 11:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow - WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:DEL14, and per the title, probably also WP:DEL6. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Future (Future album) (  | 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 WP:NALBUM. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, either as is now or a redirect. The album is by a successful rapper and is almost certain to chart next week. Yes, we don't necessarily keep albums based on the notability of the artist or what the release may do, but being a successful rapper who releases an album through regular channels almost guarantees you some sort of chart placing these days, so I think this is a premature nomination. Besides, there is no real point in deletion when, with topics such as this, the page would just be recreated by an editor if it was deleted. As for redirects, they are cheap and keeping one pointing back to the rapper's page would aid readers. What the album needs now is third-party coverage, i.e. reviews. Ss 112 22:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You redirected the article 3 days ago. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, why wanna delete the article, the album was released today. Just add more sources to it. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 16:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Tsewang Gyaltson (  | 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 player, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY. AaronWikia ( talk) 19:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep — As the captain of the Indian national ice hockey team, Gyaltson has been widely written about both in Indian and world media. 30 seconds on Google turns up the following articles. Anirvan ( talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • http://theviewspaper.net/kashmir-administrative-services-kas-topper/
  • http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/02/ice-hockey-himalayas-160229072452314.html
  • http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/861617.html
  • http://www.thehindu.com/sport/hockey/indian-ice-hockey-team-all-set-to-compete-in-kuwait/article7105626.ece#!
  • http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/sport-others/breaking-the-ice-story-of-indias-ice-hockey-team-is-stuff-movies-are-made-of/
• Keep as per Anirvan - clearly meets WP:GNG and also WP:HOCKEY (which to be honest, reads as a bit America-centric) as someone who has played at the highest extant level for his country, let alone as captain. Melcous ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Kherbet Qanafar (K-City) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete. This entire article appears to be a HOAX. The first clue is that it purports to be a city in Lebanon whose official language is English. References appear to be wholly irrelevant. For example, ref [2] purports to document the population of the city, but is a link to an Internet live stats site. Ref [4] purports to document the area of the city, but is a link to the City of Beirut's site. Refs [10] and [18] are the same dead link; ref [19] is the website of a Dubai hospital; ref [20] is the website of a Korean hospital. I can't find any reference on the page that actually mentions or describes this alleged city of almost 50,000 people. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 19:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • [Edit] I note that the title of the article, without the parenthetical, appears to be the actual name of a village in the Beka'a Valley in Lebanon, but as far as I can tell the content of the article bears little or no relationship to that real-world village. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the original author has moved the page to the title Kherbet Qanafar subsequent to this nomination (and attempted, twice, to remove the AfD template... sigh). -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If only the emergency phone numbers lined up. CMD ( talk) 09:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: the page is supported with trustworthy pictures and references, as a linkage, the website used in Ref [1] is Arabic web page of the city which is only available in one language which shows in an unorganized way that all the information found in the article is real, where the pictures are completely verified. Ref [9] shows the web page of the claimed institution (JLSI) which is correct and valid. The title is correct excluding the parenthesized description which was later removed by the original author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.88.108 ( talk) 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As I said above, the name of the article is indeed the name of a real village, and that village apparently does have a real website. The website does not show the large urban center described in the article; it shows a town that is proud to announce it has acquired a new Bobcat to remove snow from its streets! -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 23:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Good catch on the pictures, the deleting admin should delete these as well, given they were all uploaded for this article and who knows what they're copyright status is. CMD ( talk) 02:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I took liberty to delete photos. There is no freedom of panorama in Lebanon and architect's permission is needed. But if the photos are not made in Lebanon, then they are clearly hoaxes. Taivo ( talk) 20:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Luis Perez (American football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment: Recreated 06:10, 19 February 2017‎ as Luis Perez (American football), and Luis Perez (football) turned into a redirect. I have added the {{ la}} above, and added a {{ subst:afd1|Luis Perez (football)}} to Luis Perez (American football). — Sam Sailor 10:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - Hi Sam Sailor - not sure what happened, but the American football article is up, but the redirect didn't work. The "redirect" appeared at the top of the article, but didn't work as a redirect. You might want to look at it again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I stand corrected, the user added a redirect to the top of the article and retained the text, so it looked like this, thanks onel5969. In any case I think we are going to handle the situation, to put it simple we just have a duplicating article at Luis Perez (American football) which maybe is the better DAB anyway. Cheers, — Sam Sailor 13:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Please Take administrative action first (I see two articles on the same subject) and let me know when and if we should re-evaluate the article for inclusion or deletion. I suggest we leave the administrative action to be decided by those already looking at it and then have them let us know when to come back.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Pinging Northamerica1000 - Sorry to bug you, but could you take a look at this? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I may not become involved in researching this matter; working on other things at this time. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable college football player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per WP:DEL8, doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. — Sam Sailor 10:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - Luis Perez is notable because he is the first Mexican-American quarterback in NCAA history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosp14619 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Um, yeah, no. Mark Sanchez, anyone? Ejgreen77 ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH yet; it looks like he's bee nominated for a national award and is considered a likely professional prospect, so if one of those things happens, then the article could e recreated. Per above: if indeed he is notable for being "the first Mexican-American quarterback in NCAA history," then there should be significant coverage of that fact; if not, then it doesn't meet WP's guidelines. Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - Why does Dakota Prukop have a wikipedia page if he has no national awards and isn't as significant as Luis Perez? Carlosp14619 ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a non-winning candidate for local political office. His strongest claim to greater notability than the norm for unsuccessful political candidates seems to be that he got used as a target of alt-right racist attacks against the party that he's a member of, in a subsequent election in which he wasn't even a candidate. This, however, just makes him a WP:BLP1E -- he isn't even the subject of the incident coverage, but just gets namechecked in coverage which is primarily about the attackers. As unfortunate as the incident was, it is not grounds in and of itself for a standalone BLP of him -- it can and should be discussed as a noteworthy incident in the article on the party that did the attacking, but it's not enough to justify a separate article about a person who has no other substantive claim of notability. Bearcat ( talk) 18:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM also applies, his only claim to notability being this racial incident. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per Bearcat comment. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ( talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack ( talk) 19:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having taken part in a fully-professional league match. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Non-notable WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject received some press coverage however failed to meet Wikipedia's criteria for musicians! Saqib ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of locations in Charmed. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Nexus (Charmed) (  | 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 fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fictional concept with no independent notability. The only sources being used in the article are the episodes of the series itself, which do not establish notability, and I can find no reliable sources at all talking about the concept. As there is no information here aside from some crufty plot summaries, and there is nothing here that is being supported with reliable sources, there's nothing here worth merging to any of the other pages about Charmed. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 18:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of locations in Charmed. I loved this show back in the day but yea, this is only a thing within the fictional 'verse. ValarianB ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thank you! I was a fan of this show too, but I completely agree it is only notable within the fictional universe. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge per ValarianB. Jclemens ( talk) 01:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for your comment and that makes sense to me. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Sarah Hall Ingram (  | 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 classic WP:BLP1E - she was a notable person's supervisor, and there doesn't appear to be anything else we can say about her, because there are few to no substantive reliable sources focusing on her. PROD was declined. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - agree with the nomination. A bureaucrat tangentially involved in a one-time political issue. Glendoremus ( talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Kim Rowoon (  | 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 case of WP:TOOSOON (to add: Individual members of SF9, with the exception of Kang_Chan-hee, are NOT notable enough to have their own articles as their activities are exclusively within the group SF9 and nowhere else.) Tibbydibby ( talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Alternative search terms:

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

• Comment @ Tibbydibby: WP:TOOSOON is not a policy-based reason for deletion, could the deletion rationale be expanded, please? Prima facie the article doesn't look like much, but a search for the Hangul 김석우 reveals a lot of hits. I do not speak Korean, what do all these search results reveal? — Sam Sailor 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not enough acting roles to meet our inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not independently notable outside of his group. — ξ ^xplicit 01:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Siv Jakobsen (  | 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 musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete maybe even speedy delete. There really isn't even a claim of signifigance. — Non-Dropframe _talk 23:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Aami (  | 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 meet film notability guidelines. Unreleased films for which photography has not begun are seldom notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:DEL8: no reliable sources confirm that principal photography have commenced, thus subject currently fails the notability guideline for future films. Can be rewritten if and when sources support the notability guideline for films is met. — Sam Sailor 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Joseph Ward (footballer) (  | 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 WP:NFOOTBALL. Too far down the English Football league structure to be notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep ( talk) 16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per policy, fails [[ WP:NFOOTBALL]] as he currently plays National League. — Sam Sailor 19:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a senior professional league. His appearances for Brighton's under-23 side are also not classed as playing for a fully professional side per WP:FOOTBALL consensus. Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kosack ( talk) 19:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet our insanely lax inclusion criteria for football players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having taken part in a fully-professional league match. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Anglic (fictional language) (  | 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 to meet WP:N. Not much found following a Google search, this article was the first thing that popped up. Maybe a merge into the topics mentioned within, but doubtful that it's enough for a stand-alone article South Nashua ( talk) 15:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Then again, Anglic is used as a term for a fictional language in more that one publication (i.e. Bring' Uplift universe, and the Traveller universe) so it's not just an entry about one product.

The mention in Uplift about Anglic is a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmasaJoslin ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It sounds like a marginal part of those two things. South Nashua ( talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no references and unlikely to find any reliable third-party discussion. This is clearly original research. Glendoremus ( talk) 05:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

St. Regis, Astana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Brand new advertising article, from SPA account. The article may not be finished, but still manages to tell you where it is located, what it's website is, and what it will look like when finished. No encyclopedic knowledge whatsover, simply advertising muck. scope_creep ( talk) 15:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a repository of promotional materials ("splendid views" etc). K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - nothing to show notability. Reads like a promotion and uses the hotel website for references. Glendoremus ( talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 21:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Daði Freyr Arnarsson (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the basis that the Icelandic top flight is fully pro, an assertion contradicted by sources cited at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG] and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Approve - Passes WP:GNG with plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources and all sources are secondary. User: Ivar1988 18 February 2017
• Approve - I argues the WP:NFOOTBALL due to the small size of Iceland the Icelandic league will never become fully pro. Daði plays full time with a fully pro football team (FH Hafnarfjordur). We should not disclude full time footballers from smaller countries just based on rules that benefit mostly larger countries. We can't discriminat footballers only based on the WP:NFOOTBALL rule but have to consider special circumstances separately. User: Ivar1988 18 February 2017
• Delete - clearly fails NFOOTY and I see no evidence of GNG at all; just routine match reports and passing mentions Spiderone 11:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not having taken part in a fully-professional adult league match as far as I can see. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I was inching twords a delete, but on second thought this article looks like WP:TOOSOON if nothing else. However the article looks very well written and sourced. Might it be possible for the article to be moved to the user's draft space so avoid conflict and confusion in the future? Thanks Inter&anthro ( talk) 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Approve - Passes the WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage as the main topic of in four reliable sources. See references number: 8, 9, 15 and 20. The two biggest online football news website when made reliable article about him. User: Ivar1988, 22 February 2017.
• Comment - Regarding the fail WP:NFOOTBALL, Cwmhiraeth he has played 10 games in a semi-pro adult league with team BÍ/Bolungarvík (see reference number 6). He has been the second goalkeeper in numerous games in a fully-pro team in the Icelandic top league. I agree with Inter&anthro that WP:TOOSOON might apply here. Since this article is not poorly written and i don't think we should delete it since the player is one of the most promising young goalkeepers of Iceland (plays with the most successful team FH and has played 13 youth games for the national team so far) and will soon fully fill the criteria's you are concerned about. User: Ivar1988, 22 February 2017.
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Can't see how WP:TOOSOON applies given that he is contracted to a club in a semi-pro league. Number 5 7 19:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Is the main issue here that the title of this article says "footballer"? Would removing that solve the issue? Can this article the modified to represent this upcoming players career and not deleted? User: Ivar1988, 23 February 2017. —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Approve - Player appears significant in Icelandic sport. Spray787 ( talk) 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Apparently promotional article for a Local organization. (or perhaps one of its members) Perhaps a brief article on Skepticamp might be justified. The promotional nature of this article is shown by the excessive number of photos of individuals DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG, I'm sorry to read you find the article 'promotional'. Any Wiki page is meant for informational, educational purposes only. If the number of photos is excessive, we can remove some of those; I'll look into that now. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Done. Better now? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep (de-photo-ing certainly was a good idea) Cited coverage heavily skewed to local but still sufficient, I think. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete instead as the information is too listing-esque and the sources only announcements and mentions, it's not overall substantial. SwisterTwister talk 09:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I just added reference to this page for an article published in what I understand is a national publication and a WP:RS.It discusses this organization and the importance of public outreach meetings such as the one held by MCS. Hope this helps. RobP ( talk) 19:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Rap Monster. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

RM (mixtape) (  | 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 seem to meet the notability guidelines for recordings specifically those for mixtapes. No sources with in depth coverage are offered. My search could only find places to stream the recording. 331dot ( talk) 11:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Rap Monster where this mixtape is already mentioned. Insufficient coverage for a separate article. I did find a short billboard article. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Baler#Industrial_balers. I'm going to take the liberty of simply redirecting. I don't believe an Afd is necessary. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Cardboard balers (  | 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 the subject more than likely meets general notability requirements, the article does not explain what a cardboard baler is. Meatsgains ( talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Afro-Eurasia. Kurykh ( talk) 19:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Extreme points of Afro-Eurasia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Afro-Eurasia is not a widely used division of the world. The extreme points of which are trivial and not well-enough discussed to meet notability guidelines. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. Redundant to Extreme points of Eurasia and Extreme points of Africa. -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Afro-Eurasia (which should itself be merged with Old World, but that's a different question). NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Afro-Eurasia as per the merge template I added atop the article just prior to this nomination. Afro-Eurasia may not be a widely-used term, but it is an encyclopedic term. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Afro-Eurasia. Should only take a moment. Afro-Eurasia / Old World / World Island is a reasonably notable concept, the article is short, and this material should fit right in. Herostratus ( talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus about deletion, but consensus that if kept it should be moved to Arab rejectionism, which is what it is (now) about. Can be renominated after the move.  Sandstein  14:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Rejectionism (  | 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 dicdef / original research for an '-ism' based on occasonal usage of this noun derived from "rejection" and says nothing beyond the literal meaning of the word "reject" something. Basically a WP:SYNTH of examples of random usages of the term. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retracted after recent expansion of one special subject. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Alternative solution: Move to Arab rejectionism and turn this title into dab page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ E.M.Gregory: @ Mark viking: @ Resnjari: Will you agree with speedy non-admin closure and implementing the alternative solution above? Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• In light of the work E.M.Gregory and you have done to improve the article per WP:HEY, I think keeping and renaming to Arab rejectionism, with Rejectionism becoming a DAB page, is a good solution and I support it. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• I was looking around and there is the article International recognition of Israel. As this article is about recognition/non-recongition of Israel an at most the content here amounts to about two paragraphs. It can be transferred there with a redirect of Rejectionism for that article. That is a better solution than here. This term rejectionism is a neologism anyway mainly used by some proponents of the Israeli side of the conflict interpreting the Arab/Palestinian position. In many other conflicts around the world there are sides who "reject" certain things however the term rejectionism is not used. Having this article on its own goes more on the POV side as its infers that rejecting something is an Arab thing. Having a article called Arab rejctionism also would be problematic too and have a POV-ish slant to it. Unless the term rejectionism has wide ranging currency and use for other conflicts then i would change my stance and say to keep this article. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• The article is now strongly sourced to peer-reviewed academic journalists, and to bluelinked scholars and diplomats who have written about Arab rejectionism in a serious way, defining it and discussing its political impact. While there undoubtedly are a number of articles form which this term can be usefully linked, I do not see a policy-based argument for deletion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete, as per reasons outlined by editor Staszek Lem. Resnjari ( talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• I also wonder if it's basically WP:COATRACK to largely address Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel. It sure seems that way. I've tagged this for both the Israel and Palestine discussion pages, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, possibly rename. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows that rejectionism as a political concept has existed for decades. There are books devoted to it, such as The Deadly Embrace: The Impact of Israeli and Palestinian Rejectionism on the Peace Process, 1997 and The Search for Peace: Peace Proposals and Rejectionism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict : a Handbook of Selected Documents, 1983 and articles such as Dateline Israel: A New Rejectionism, Foreign Policy, 1979. GScholar shows more than 2,100 hits, so there is more sourcing available. There are political groups such as the Palestine coalition Rejectionist Front. Hence the topic of Israeli/Palestinian rejectionism seems notable. Given a notable use of this concept, the synth stuff can be cut and the article is salvageable and should be kept. I would have no problem with renaming the article to something like Palestinian and Israeli rejectionism to reflect that this is about the more specific concept. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Please find sources which talk about "rejectionism as a political concept". There is Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli rejectionism, and many other kind of rejectionism. The fact there are two-word terms does not imply there is a concept for a single-word term beyond its dictionary definition. There should be two separate articles (may be more) and this one a disambig page.. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • P.S., after reading a bit around, I see that "Palestinian rejectionsm" is is fact "Arab rejection of the Israel state", and I am pretty sure there is a good redirect target without actually writing a WP:FORK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • P.P.S. I also looked thru philocophical books which use the term "rejectionism". In most case these are ad hoc usages. E.g. here 'r-ism' is a shorthand for "Foucault's rejection of humanism" whateber it is. and here the author gives his own definition of r-ism as "the approach that takes the ostensible results to be interpreted to be so unacceptable as to constitute a signal to reject something that led to these results." Also, Holocaust denial is also called "r-ism" by some. Etc. etc. Basically, any kind of rejection (disambiguation) of anything may be dubbed "rejectionism". Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that there don't seem to be sources on the general concept of rejectionism and the article as it stands has problems with synthesis. A DAB page for a general concept seems like a reasonable solution to me, if there are good targets. In the spirit of salvaging what we can, there is a particular use of the concept associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict that seems notable and so could have an article devoted to it, or separate Palestinian and Israeli articles. The current article mentions the Palestinian-Israeli use, but doesn't have a lot on it. If there is a good redirect target, I would be happy to consider it. Rejectionist Front is not a good redirect target because it is too specific. -- Mark viking ( talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It being described as a "political concept" is found in some sources relating to the Israeli side regarding their interpretation of the Palestinian view. More on the wp:POV and wp:fork side, with a dose of wp:OR in the way it is written here. The suggestion by editor Staszek Lem on a redirect within the article about recognition/non-recongition of Palestine is apt here. Still stand by the view this article ought to be deleted. Resnjari ( talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect term to Arab rejectionism, a term that has been in wide use for decades, with some minor uses of "Palestinian rejectionism" and the inevitible tit-for-tat introduction of "Israeli rejection." I have already sourced this WP:NEO, although it's not exactly NEO, even this article has been around for years and years. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• WP:HEYMANN; I did a minor expand, source. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• You really should have started the new article, Arab rejectionism, rather than expanding this one, doomed to be a disambig page. (also it oud be good to summarize it in Foreign_relations_of_Israel#No_recognition_or_diplomatic_relations. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• It is, in fact, quite ordinary to find a poorly-sourced article brought to AFD by an editor who found only "random usages of the term". Then to have another editor realize that there is a coherent topic, bring specific and reliable sourcing for the term, and propose a rename as the outcome. It's not only quite usual, it's pretty much win-win. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  It became coherent only after I deleted various other fluff and you added more content to a single subject of many conflated here. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an artist and academic. This just states that she exists, and references the fact solely to a (deadlinked) primary source on the website of the institution where she works. As always, "she exists, and here's a staff profile on the website of her own employer to prove it" is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article -- she needs to be reliably sourceable as passing one or more specific notability criteria in WP:NARTIST and/or WP:NACADEMICS, but nothing like that is being shown here at all. Bearcat ( talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics or artists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, well sourced as per WP:GNG. In the current revision, refs # 2, 5 and 6 are in-depth and non-trivial, and I could dig up more. Geschichte ( talk) 19:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I think this meets WP:NACADEMIC #6, as the former rector of Oslo National Academy of the Arts and Geschichte has expanded the article a great deal with references. Mortee ( talk) 18:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Hmlarson ( talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delhi to Amritsar Trains (  | 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 WP:NOTTRAVEL. βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per nominator. We could also merge any relevant content over to New Delhi Amritsar Express. Meatsgains ( talk) 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. A portion of the article also seems somewhat promotional. — Non-Dropframe _talk 23:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Unanimous consensus. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Voris (  | 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 is a rather peculiar instance of a WP:Walled garden monster. The subject of the article is the founder of a non-notable media company (referred to in the article as an apostolate, but it does not have the backing of any formal church or denomination), and has received some WP:ONEEVENT style media attention for conflicts owing to certain radical statements he has made. The problem is that we need to identify Voris as notable per WP:BIO, and I just don't see it. No biographies have been written about Voris and all the sources that are reliable in our article are simply quoting him rather than discussing him as a notable person. I note that his media network, "churchmilitant.com" does not seem to be all that notable either, in spite of it serving as a kind of ultra-right-wing bastion for Catholics who are on the verge of falling off into the traditionalist/sedevacantist club. However, detailed coverage of this niche community does not seem to be forthcoming and in spite of internet-based controversy of the message-board sort, I do not see much in the way of reliably sourced information that would let us write anything like a halfway decent article. The current article is really awful, to be clear. It traffics in rumor, soapboxing, and coatracking to such an extent that I just decided that WP:TNT is appropriate (though re-creation is not advisable either). jps ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Here is a NYTimes article which is a profile of Voris and churchmilitant.com https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/us/church-militant-theology-is-put-to-new-and-politicized-use.html It seems to me to establish notability. NPalgan2 ( talk) 02:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply