WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2017 MARCH 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 March	19 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ambient industrial

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

Not notable. Only one source (that being the source cited right now is this article) is talking about this style. I can't find any other significant reliable source discussing in-depth style. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. As the nom said this article is not notable (per WP:GNG). I have done a WP:BEFORE search and have found no useful sources. - KAP03(^{Talk •
Contributions •
Email}) 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ella Wilks

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

Non-notable actor. Very few references. Not active. Not a vanity page, but still not enough here. Vectro ( talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete no evidence she has ever been in a notable production. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 25 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Heteropatriarchy

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

Lacks stand-alone notability. Probably better off as a sub-section of a broader article. TheDracologist ( talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note that this is one of a series of ill-considered AfDs by new editor User:TheDracologist. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Patriarchy#Feminist theory of which this is at best a subtopic. Some of the text and sources can be merged there. Note tht recent AfD closed as no consensus. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NEO and/or WP:OR. South Nashua ( talk) 02:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. There is enough evidence to keep it as a separate article. Otherwise it would lose part of its meaning. DaddyCell ( talk) 13:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- Comment: it is very significant that an heteropatriarchal institution such as Wikipedia, mostly formed by cisgender, heterosexual males is voting for the third time the deletion of the article that explains this situation. DaddyCell ( talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  - Comment: One could also argue that the fact this article exists after an AfD resulted in a consensus to delete it is evidence of feminist bias among administrators. Things always look different depending on what lens you look at it through. I don't believe there's a bias on Wikipedia one way or the other, but the subject of this article seems to be a fringe theory that lacks the notability to warrant its own article. TheDracologist ( talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete or, if not, then redirect - per last three discussions, and DGG's comments in the 2nd one. There's plenty of evidence the term exists, but not yet that it has been used widely in secondary sources. This is also a mere content fork of patriarchy, since heterosexuality and patriarchy are, in many scholars' and laypersons' minds, conjoined. FWIW, I am a feminist, cis, gay man. Bearian ( talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Looking around, I see increasing usage, including the American Spectator, of all places. I had thought it meant to imply the possibility of a patriarchal society that wasn't heteropatriarchal . But apparently it is used in order to emphasise both the patriarchial and the heterodominent aspects of conventional society. (Heterodominent is a real concept also, and I suppose we need an article). DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. : It is a legitimate concept and has adequate sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep interesting and valid concept, article is also very well sourced. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 23:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ass Hunter

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

Lack of notability. TheDracologist ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Besides the reliable sources already in the article, there's also Slate, PCMag, CNN. IBTimes (Questionable reliably if I recall though), Daily Dot (Questionable reliably), NY Daily News... There's a lot of sourcing available from secondary reliable sources, however, it feels a little bit like a WP:ONEEVENT situation (Which normally only applies to people). The coverage is entirely about the game's removal, and appears to be covered only by typical daily news. Other than PCMag, there appears to be no coverage from any typical VG reliable sources and no direct coverage of the game itself separate from it's removal. -- ferret ( talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note that this is one of a series of ill-considered AfDs by new editor User:TheDracologist.@ Shawn in Montreal and Ferret:. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - When an article already has several good sources listed, "lack of notability" with no further explanation is not a very good rationale. I would ask TheDracologist to explain her thoughts a bit more fully. Ladyof Shalott 16:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It appears to be a single event that had little to no long-term impact. TheDracologist ( talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Plenty of sourcing. While its mostly known for one event, WP:ONEEVENT applies to people. I'm not sure it can be used for a video game. I'd say "very weak" keep, but I wouldn't want to see this deleted as a default due to low participation. If someone has another policy that applies, please ping me. -- ferret ( talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- @ Ferret: Criteria of WP:NEVENT? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per failing WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject of sources (removal from store) is not the subject of the article (video game). The removal event itself is a one-time news event, which doesn't pass any event notability criteria, such as WP:LASTING or WP:COVERAGE. The actual video game fails WP:GNG with no in-depth sources, such as reviews from WP:VG/RS. The sources are mainly about one aspect of the video game's timeline, which is not in-depth enough to provide substantial content for gameplay, development, or general critical reception to adhere to WP:WAF. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Per HELLKNOWZ, who was able to state what I was trying to get to in my first comment. -- ferret ( talk) 18:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Would delete ASAP: Sounds controversial to me, and violates my right as a LGBT supporter. Xy ae na 04:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh the game sounds horrible. That is not a deletion criterion, however. Ladyof Shalott 05:08, 24 March 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 Geek girl. Kurykh ( talk) 00:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Fake geek girl

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

Does this really warrant its own article? TheDracologist ( talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

This does not seem notable enough to warrant its own article. TheDracologist ( talk) 23:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I guess the thing I'm really trying to articulate is that it seems like an unnecessary WP:FORK covering a small section of a the larger topic of women and geek culture that can't really sustain its own article. TheDracologist ( talk) 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Fork isn't what I'm looking for either. I mean that it is too narrow for its own article and is better off as a subsection of a larger article TheDracologist ( talk) 23:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I disagree that it should be merged into some other article, but am curious what article would you like to see it merged into. It would also be helpful if you could explain why you think it can't sustain its own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd probably make it a section in Geek girl. TheDracologist ( talk) 00:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Nominator has not stated a policy based reason for deletion. -- ferret ( talk) 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NAD and WP:N TheDracologist ( talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ TheDracologist: There are eight sources, all written entirely about the phenomenon. The article contains quite a bit more than a dictionary article would, and I think clearly qualifies under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The topic, and not just the term, is the subject of discussion in books, news, scholarly articles, and the like. NAD utterly fails to apply. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep - while the current article is pretty skimpy, the topic is highly relevant to the interactions of popular culture, fandom and feminism. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect and merge to Geek girl, a very short article that could efficiently include this information, and be more useful to Users as a single article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
A notable phenomena with sufficient sourcing. Can easily be expanded further. Keep Sro23 ( talk) 01:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - this is a significant popular culture phenomenon with reputable secondary sources discussing it -- though I'm the author of one of them. - Reagle ( talk) 19:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect and merge to Geek girl per E.M.Gregory, it's a subset of the Geek girl topic (e.g. fake geek girls wouldn't exist if geek girls didn't) and isn't distinct enough from it to come under WP:RELART and justify a content fork, IMO. Alcherin ( talk) 23:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep or merge - the content is important; where is goes is less so. Bearian ( talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect and merge to Geek girl, per E.M.Gregory (talk) Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge to Geek girl. I agree there is certainly material there, but I don't believe this rises to a level of notability where it deserves its own page. Maybe in the future. But until then, the content that is good will be nice in the other article. Kharkiv07 ( T) 22:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect to Geek girl there is some interesting information here, but not enough to warrant it's own article. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 23:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Steven Thibault

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

Delete. Minimally sourced BLP, written by the subject himself in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO, about a film producer. He might certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article if it could be written neutrally and sourced properly, but nothing here gives him automatic inclusion rights just for existing. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative on which a person is guaranteed an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage about him in media, properly supporting a notability claim that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 21:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment This article started out as a smash up of this subject and Stephen Spielberg's info including the entire copied Spielberg infobox. I have to AGF that maybe the the info box copy was to use as a pattern, but other editors had to weed out all the Speilberg info. This subject does not nearly meet GNG. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. The only reference I can find at Google News is this review of the movie "Beatriz at Dinner" at 2017 Sundance. To put that into context, this article lists four producers for the movie. Then it lists eight executive producers. Then at last Thibault is listed as one of the four co-executive producers. And that is the only mention I can find in Google News; I know there are other places one can look, but this is indicative of the public profile of somebody in an administrative role. I notice that a huge number of editors have chipped in to try and improve the article already, so I am not convinced of the potential to save it with a re-write (though I would be happy to shown wrong). -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 01:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete This article subject is just not notable. I also did some searches and like Gronk Oz has noted, there is just hardly anything avaliable to show notabilty. The breakdown of the producer hierarchy is a great analysis. Subject fails WP:GNG. It all strikes me the wrong way with all the Spielberg info, refs, and infobox in the original article creation. I would enjoy hearing from the creator to understand how that could have happened? Antonioatrylia ( talk) 01:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The Perfect Name

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

Article does not establish notability per WP:GNG. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Original Research that does not establish notability as per WP:BAND

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

All I could find was this local news article. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:54, 18 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Unreconstructed Whitlamite

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

Non-notable label (and dictionary definition content that could never be expanded much). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 20:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per WP:NEO and is not notabile. - Pmedema ( talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per above; a very, very long way from a notable term. Astounding that it has survived this long. Frickeg ( talk) 22:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. This could be rolled into a glossary of Australian political terms or similar, but isn't a viable article. Nick-D ( talk) 10:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment Survived this long - it was an orphan - which is why I see deorphaning as an important way of getting the wikipedia community's attention to articles - with whatever outcome. I do think the term has encyclopedic value but will not make a comment to the contrary re article viability. I do like Nick-D's suggestion. Eno Lirpa ( talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep I'll say this for the Aussies, when they want to put a guy down, they don't mince words. As for all the unresonstructed Whitlamites trying to delete this article, I am putting you on notice: there are sources. (end of joke section) This AdD and, indeed, this unsourced article appears to be an example of our linked presentism and paywall problems. This term was in pretty wide use in Australia. I imagine that in 10-15 years, regferences to the Bowling Green Massacre will draw similarly blank looks. I'll do a little more sourcing in the few minutes I still have available, but it requires the use of paywalled searches. That is a problem for which I have no fix. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note that although editors have been asserting that there are no sources, there was, in fact, a long list of bare URLs form which the article can be sourced. I added some text and a few in-line sources form my own searches before noticing those. Judging fomr comments, other editors also failed to notice that, despite the lack of in-line reference, tehis neologism did includde a long list of sources tht cold be used to expand the article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

- - A dicdef explanation of an almost-never-used neologism, and a mention of a character in a book using the neologism, doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Did you have a look at that list of sources at the bottom of the page, left by an editor years ago? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Indeed, what it does argue for is WP:PRESERVE via redirect, (I only wish there were wikipedia entriesexplaining the political epithets referring to governments and political movements long dead; they would be so useful when decoding old texts) Back to the present, where to redirect, perhaps to Whitlam Government? I will defer to Aussies on tthe best destination. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete at it is a somewhat esoteric page. I read political history for pleasure and I still think this article serves little purpose. Otherwise we'd have articles for more or less each one of Keating's quips. An article on "cheats, cheats, cheats," "couldn't raffle a chicken in a pub," "frauds and mugs," and so on. This does make me chuckle, though, perhaps we should be adding these comments to Keating's wikiquotes page. Whatever you think of him, his humour and acidic tongue are really unmatched today. Vision Insider ( talk) 23:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - Well sourced, with a decent assertion of notability regarding the ALP's 1980's/90's internal tensions and economic policies. That separates it from a mere "insult" definition. Sure, it's never going to be more than a stub, but it's much more than dicdef.-- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 21:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

AGP 3 Trailer

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, an interesting part of public transportation. AGP Trailer are seldom esecail two axle Trailers and that they wehre used on mountain lines by busses carrying passengertrailers. Absolutly Notable. FFA P-16 ( talk) 20:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - unfortunately, WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid argument. With the lack of awards or anything like that, I don't see where this article, about a trailer, has moved into the realm of notability. - Pmedema ( talk) 01:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Pmedema: Could you sian your comment please. Nördic Nightfury 12:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: No notability per above comment. Nördic Nightfury 12:28, 20 March 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. There is certainly consensus that this should be kept, and there is certainly consensus that the article (in its current state) is not good. So I'm closing this AfD as keep with the hope that the article is improved, if it's not we can readdress merging and/or redirecting in the future (as was mentioned by some people here). ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 22:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Multi-function display

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

To me this page looks like nothing but original research. There are better topics to place this content in. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 18:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

So are you arguing this is OR, or that the content should go somewhere else? If it is OR it should not be put anywhere else, and if it is not OR and moved the history must be retained for legal reasons and the page is therefore not a suitable candidate for deletion. In any case, I don't see that the claim of OR stands up to scrutiny. Spinning Spark 06:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge to Flight instruments which is a cute article with its miniature indicators but needs to be updated past the 1940s. Multifunction displays are what current flight instruments look like. The article isn't original research. It comes from the era when references weren't thought necessary in Wikipedia for info in standard books on the subject. I've added a reference to further reading. StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment an automated teller machine is mostly MFD to the end user (customer), and that isn't a flight instrument; the infotainment display in a car is also an MFD -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 04:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- Comment this should be an industrial design and haptics article, since MFDs are so common with the previoius generation of electronic kiosks (before they were replaced by embedded Android tablets in kiosks) -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 04:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Don't delete as this has lots of inlinks. Possibly redirect/merge. DexDor^(talk) 06:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is another nomination that has just looked at the current state of an article rather than what the article could be. Instead of asking how can I get this poor page deleted, ask instead, how can this page be improved. It is only deserving of deletion if it is beyond hope of improvement. I agree that MFDs are used beyond aviation and the article could be so expanded, but aviation is a major and important application so it is quite right that the article focuses on this. Book sources confirming this are easily found;

Development of a Synthetic Vision System for General Aviation has an eight page section on the subject
Advanced Avionics Handbook, 2009 has a half-page section and discusses the device on multiple other pages in the book
Aircraft Digital Electronic and Computer Systems has a short section describing them

Additionally, there are numerous journal papers on aviation MFDs; [1] [2] [3] [4]. Spinning Spark 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article looks fine apart from needing more references and possibly expanding a bit more. Stepho talk 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Not OR. (@ Some Gadget Geek: what looks like OR?). Merging to Glass cockpit along PFD would be better suited than flight instruments, but not urgent either.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The article as it is now states that "A multi-function display (MFD) is a small screen (CRT or LCD) surrounded by multiple soft keys (configurable buttons) that can be used to display information to the user in numerous configurable ways." It sounds completely like they made up the term and classified it (a display as multi-function) based on how it is designed. Technically, all touch-screens are multi-functional, so why not instead merge this page with Touchscreen instead? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 22:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

That makes no sense, since you do not touch the screen on a traditional MFD. Why not merge lightpen into touchscreen, while you're at it? That also isn't a touchscreen, but also gives a display additional functions. Lightpens touch the screen, but not in the way that "touchscreens" are touched. -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@gadget geek : MFD is an usual term in avionics, [5] and is described OK in the article.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, since this is a useful article on a significant topic which simply needs expansion. Furthermore, it can't be merged/redirected to an existing aviation article because MFDs are widely used outside transport (pre-touchscreen ATMs being a common example). -- pmj ( talk) 13:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately the article currently describes MFDs as they are used exclusively in aviation. If you say so we might as well merge the pages Soft key and Screen-labeled function keys which essentially function as integral parts of MFDs as they are described here. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 22:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

~~You are right, merging both of those pages into this one makes sense since they are even more specialised.~~ However, they are fine standing alone. There are better uses of our time. -- pmj ( talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Softkeys are not necessarily paired with screens though. They can and are used with LED indicator lights and a printed (dead tree) key mapping. Our article on softkeys even mentions that the keyboard Function Keys are softkeys, and those are not labelled onto your screen, indeed they made dead tree templates to fit onto your keyboard for WordStar or WordPerfect back in the day to indicate their soft functions. -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 03:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I withdraw that statement. -- pmj ( talk) 13:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Really don't care I came here to give an obvious keep for the topic, and any issues of OR should be fixed by editing. But then I read the article. WP:TNT. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Vector (food)

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

Completely unsourced article that would fail notability guidelines and which would probably be better off being part of a section of List of Kellogg's products. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 17:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete I was unable to find reliable sources despite running variations of the name through the various gSearches. The best I could do was a few passing mentions and not enough to amount to significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. The cereal brand is already listed in Kellogg's#Cereal, which I agree with the nominator to be all that is warranted. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: I found a number of references in the Toronto Star via ProQuest, but since I do not have access to the full articles I cannot determine if these are incidental mentions or potential refs for this article. Can someone who has access investigate this? (Examples include this (probably marketing fluff), this, and this.) Mind matrix 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Lacks sources to establish standalone notability; the listing in the Kellogg's article is sufficient to provide encyclopedic coverage. One has to wonder, though, how an article about another Kellogg product, Krave (cereal), running to about four or five paragraphs (depending how you visualize them), remains in good standing with only a single reference, which supports, maybe, a single fact in the article. I'll admit to a Deletionist bias; this article offers support for that philosophy. DonFB ( talk) 11:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:56, 25 March 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.

Lifa Bekwa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD:G11 as spam – Athaenara ✉ 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Advert for subject and his company Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete the author's edit summaries hint at WP:PAID "Hello. I am still working on this brief" and copyvio "I have added a clearer image of Lifa Bekwa i found on his official Facebook account." Cabayi ( talk) 17:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Amita Dhanda

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

Does not meet WP:Prof Uncletomwood ( talk) 16:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Weak keep WP:GNG for the harassment case. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC). reply

Delete The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:PROF. As far as the legal case is concerned, it's a single event which did not attract significant coverage by the Indian media. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 10:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep I see numerous Google books sources talking about her work in detail. 198.58.162.200 ( talk) 20:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep I've written a bit more about her role at NALSAR and her activism based on RS. While I didn't add any in depth profiles of her in particular, there is a lot of discussion of her academic and activist work in reliable sources, and she seems to me to pass GNG. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Prominent law professor, plenty of sources. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clearly notable and passes GNG for sources. Multiple indicia of notability all add up. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 25 March 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. Will rename to Baba Jitto ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Bua Kauri Baba Jitmal (Jhiri)

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

Non-notable saint.Was deprodded. Winged Blades^Godric 12:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Seems to be more commonly referred to as "Baba Jitto". Under that name, it's not hard to find some sources:

"Baba Jitto remembered at Jhiri fair". The Tribune. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
Sahagala, Narendra (2011). "Baba Jitto - A Rare Precedent of Self-Sacrifice". Jammu & Kashmir: A State in Turbulence. Suruchi Prakashan. pp. 34–37. ISBN 978-81-89622-83-1.
Dr Mandeep, Dr. Azad; Motan, Dr. Manmeet. "Baba Aghar Jitto Mela". Daily Excelsior.
Jeratha, Aśoka (1998). Dogra Legends of Art & Culture. Indus Publishing. pp. 232–234. ISBN 978-81-7387-082-8.
"SKUAST-J auditorium to be named after Baba Jitto". Jammu Links News.
"Showcasing cultural heritage, Baba Jitto Mela gets underway". State Times.
Chaturvedi, B.K. "8. The Story of Baba Jitto". Vaishno Devi. Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd. pp. 39–43. ISBN 978-81-7182-734-3.
"Agar Jitto mela concludes with Natrang's play "Baba Jitto", thousands pay obeisance". U4U Voice.

The article is weak because it is written from a believer's standpoint and retells a legend as fact, without the caveat that this is the story. It needs lines like "Both of these divine souls are worshiped in the form of total God today" rewritten entirely. But, the subject seems like a notable one. (Incidentally, "non-notable saint" seems almost oxymoronic) Mortee ( talk) 00:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: Per Mortee. SL93 ( talk) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Rename as Baba Jitto. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep: Jamesjpk ( talk) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 23. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete:This article is bad from a quality standpoint; and a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The state of the article, and the likelyness that the neutrality of the article will be disrupted by the non-neutral writing style of the original article if it gets rewritten lead me to the suggestion of applying WP:TNT. Burning Pillar ( talk) 14:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Kaibin Huang

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

Resume-style biography of a non- notable researcher. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Ivanvector: this article has an AfD Keep decision from less than 1 month ago: what is the need to open another discussion? AllyD ( talk) 14:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Overzealous nomination; happily withdrawn. This article came up in a sockpuppet investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcellusDWallace if interested. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Sumohana S. Channappayya

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

Biography of a non-notable researcher devoid of citations to reliable sources. Created apparently as part of an undisclosed class project; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcellusDWallace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Citation counts not high enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no other notability evident. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not meet notability sufficiently. Arunram ( talk) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC). reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

SHRUTO

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG because of lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t -
c} 11:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete A worthy-sounding org, but not a notable one. The sole cited source is insufficient to demonstrate notability, and searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Newsbank, and ProQuest found no other sources. Fails WP:ORG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 22:04, 21 March 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. Not a snowball's chance of another outcome. czar 08:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The complete list of Nintendo Switch games that have a free demo available on the Nintendo Switch eShop

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable grouping. Also an example of Wikipedia:Listcruft and WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to its trivial inclusion criteria. The1337gamer ( talk) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 10:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 10:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:LISTN. This is a cross-selection of 4 different groups (video games, platform is Nintendo Switch, has free demo, sold in Switch eShop). There is no way this is encyclopedic content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. Having a demo starts getting into WP:NOT#CATALOG territory (a detail of interest only to gamers rather than the general population), and so this list is not needed. -- MASEM ( t) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - per above. Please, someone WP:SNOW this, it's not even close. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - going to add my voice to the WP:NOTCATALOG snow. ansh 666 17:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: Trivia. κατάστασ η 20:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete with the exception of the Splatoon 2 testfire I don't see a case for the demos to even be mentioned in the articles for the individual games.-- 64.229.167.158 ( talk) 23:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

OCER - Okehampton, Crediton & Exeter Railway

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

Non notable (proposed) company that was started by someone closely connected to the subject. This should not be confused with OkeRail, which is discussed in this article's only source. Jolly Ω Janner 07:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete – This railway has no source; the one ref mentions service, but nothing resemblilng the title here. Is it a railway company? A service? A line? Or just nothing yet? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete (or merge if a suitable target is found). WP:BEFORE indicates no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage: 'OCER', 'Okehampton, Crediton & Exeter Railway' (which are mostly concerned, as the nom points out, with OkeRail, except a couple of (very) local papers- [6], [7]), and together, just a Facebook group: 'OCER "Okehampton, Crediton & Exeter Railway"'. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Worth noting this recently created article Okehampton, Crediton & Exeter Railway (proposed Train Operating Company) which should be deleted too. Jolly Ω Janner 02:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I PROD'd that one, which was created by the same editor, with zero refs; and asked him to focus on trying to rescue the first one instead. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I redirected it, it'll get deleted if/when this does. Kharkiv07 ( T) 04:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Not yet notable, and see WP:BEFORE. Kharkiv07 ( T) 04:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - a non-notable. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 25 March 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The Lighthouse (Ana da Silva album)

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

Has failed WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM since 2006. © Tbhotch^™ ( en-2.5). 06:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. It has never failed either guideline, it's just a poor article. Review from Allmusic, CMJ New Music Monthly, SPIN, and Les Inrockuptibles easily establish notability, and there are a few pieces of further coverage ( [8], [9]), and that's before we look through offline sources. -- Michig ( talk) 11:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. Article now improved using available online sources. -- Michig ( talk) 13:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep sufficient coverage to warrant an article per the sources Michig linked and implemented. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep: Plenty of significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 03:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Onisha Sharma

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

Autobiography of an actress who doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Not even mentioned in the wiki pages of the movie / serial the actor has played a roler. Arunram ( talk) 13:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 25 March 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. No prejudice towards sending it to draftspace or userspace. Kurykh ( talk) 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Downtown Raleigh fire

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

The prod was contested. This looks like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. This only has routine news coverage and I don't see how the fire is notable and goes beyond news. The article infobox even states there were 0 deaths and injuries. SL93 ( talk) 04:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - no enduring significant / significant and lasting coverage. Not even worth a mention in the city article. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not establish notability as written. Not every event is notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete It sounds like minor local news. It doesn't seem to have lasting significance. Imalawyer ( talk) 05:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Strike !vote of blocked sock. -- Kurykh ( talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

- Disregard above comment as Imalawyer has been confirmed as a Sock puppet of User:Sdc3000. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 23:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep or possible merge (with the Raleigh article) as this was a major fire in the middle of an urban metropolis. See here -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 13:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Draftify or Userify. It only happened 3 days ago and to call it "historic" in that context is laughable. The comments about only local significance are likely correct, but it's simply too soon to judge whether it has lasting significance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: I don't see how a death count factors in notability. — JJ Be rs 16:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- And I don't see how this fire, which happened recently, is historic and notable beyond the local area. SL93 ( talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Carole Madrzak

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ks0stm ^{(
T•
C•
G•
E)} 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete I ran a Google search and I didn't see any evidence of coverage in third party sources. Imalawyer ( talk) 05:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete a jacketflap is not an indepdent source, and as Imalawyer indicate we searches have not identified any others. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Found nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 25 March 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. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Remember the Laughter

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

Would have prodded, but it's already been returned to this state from a redirect. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Ray Toro as the album itself doesn't appear to be notable currently as per WP:NMUSIC. PriceDL ( talk) 05:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Notable musician releases first solo album, and the media have written about it.

So let's keep this album article, and move some of these references into it. Binksternet ( talk) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Kellymoat ( talk) 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

What is your reasoning behind this vote? Just putting delete is not exactly a compelling argument. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

oops. For some reason this didn't make it to my watchlist. I didn't know there were updates.

Truth be told - WP simply has too much non-sense. WP is not free advertising for Hollywood. Let them pay for their own web domains if they want to advertise every single album. There is nothing in the article, or the references posted above (but they aren't posted in the article) that make this notable. It is, very simply, an album by an ex-singer of a D-list band.

The sources above do provide a weak indication that this album has received at least some coverage from outside sources. It may not be enough to keep the article around, but at least it is a sign of something. Also, your opinion about "WP simply has too much non-sense" is not relevant to this discussion. The discussion should be kept on notability as achieved through sourcing or WP:NMUSIC. I can understand the argument to redirect/delete this if you believe the above sources do not indicate enough coverage (as I am on the fence about it as well and opted for a "weak keep"). Aoba47 ( talk) 19:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Obviously, if it passed the smell test, no one would even be questioning it. So, outside of the obvious, the fact that we are giving free advertising to songs that are considered "filler" is something that we (perhaps on a larger venue than this particular page) need to address. Why is this guy notable outside of his old band, and why are we giving any attention to the album. His own website doesn't even devote as much attention to it as we have. He doesn't have to, he has us to do it for him. Kellymoat ( talk) 20:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Except commentators on here are providing sources that establish at least some sense of notability for this subject. Your issues with this site providing "free advertising" is not relevant to this discussion. As I said before, this discussion should focus on whether or not there are enough sources to pinpoint whether or not this has received significant coverage from outside, third-party resources. Anyway, I will not clog up this AfD anymore with further discussion about this as we just have a difference of opinion, and I respect your viewpoint on this. Aoba47 ( talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak keep per sources provided by Binksternet. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Ray Toro. Per nom, fails WP:NMUSIC; the first release of a somewhat notable musician, yet the album itself is not notable. Sekyaw (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per the sources found by Binksternet. The sources provide in-depth coverage and analysis of the album. Here is a quote from the Alternative Press article:
The scope of the album is remarkably diverse, thereby pretty much destroying any preconceived notion of what people may expect from Toro. While not a “concept album” per se, Laughter is loosely framed around the story of an older man visiting his childhood home and hearing a familiar melody coming from the house. He follows the sound and discovers a box of things the man’s father left behind that sparks memories of his life and the lessons he learned. Musically, there are a few moments where Toro throws down sweet six-stringed shred, but Remember The Laughter really focuses on his songwriting skills, from the pastoral prog rock of the title track to new-wave energy bursts (“Isn’t That Something,” “Take The World”) to blues rock jams that would sound great on a playlist between the Rolling Stones and the Fabulous Thunderbirds. It’s ambitious, alluring and all Ray.
This provides substantial analysis about the album's genres.
Here is a quote from a The Record article:
The start of the album ponders around light guitar melodies and very upbeat Toro vocals. ‘Isn’t That Something’ screams the most ‘single worthy’ track on the album and for an extra touch, has a nifty little Toro guitar solo that might give My Chemical Romance fans of old something to reminisce at. By the time you reach the second interlude ‘Ascent’, there’s a pattern starting to emerge, one of a life being told in single memories separated by interludes throughout the album. One of the later interludes ‘Eruption’ depicts a rather dark image of violence, possibly including someone close to the character, as sirens can be heard behind an emergency services call.
‘The Great Beyond’ fits seamlessly with Toro’s voice, slightly pained but still melodically full of life. Speaking of full of life, ‘Hope For The World’ starting off with the lyrics; “turn off the sound of war and hate.” The track is filled with lovingly wrote lyrics and something Toro could be proud to leave embedded in the album. The six minute long title track is slow to build up, but hits its peak four minutes in with Toro screaming “remember me” followed by a minute and a half long guitar solo fading into rather soothing baby mobile twinkles.
This provides detailed analysis about the albums' melodies.
Cunard ( talk) 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Its previous coverage was arguably due to him being a former member of a major band, but the album itself still fails WP:NMUSIC criteria. The album still has weak coverage for it to be considered notable and it was not that successful as it has not charted in any major charts in any country. Sekyaw (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings says:

All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

I believe the sources provided here clearly demonstrates that the album meets the first criterion in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The album therefore is notable. That the coverage is allegedly because he is a former member of a major band does not affect the fact that this album has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets the notability guideline.

Cunard ( talk) 05:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with Cunard on this. If the album has received coverage due to his past membership in a major band, then the album still has received coverage and obtains some level of notability. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete The coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:NALBUM. The sources provided are either not RS or are brief mentions of the recording. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Never forget (political phrase)

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

Apart from one very weak sentence in the second source, this article does not have any sources about the subject at all. It is just someone's SYTHy selection of sources that use the phrase or a similar phrase. It needs to be deleted unless someone comes up with a source that discusses the phrase and its history and usage. Incidentally, the apparent large number of articles that link to this one is just because it is included in a template used for genocide/massacre-related articles. I looked at a random handful of them and they don't mention this phrase. Zero^talk 03:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. It's simply too general a combination of words. Keep in mind that Never Again is simply a disambiguation page. At most, that's all this should be, if anything. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Far too generalised a phrase, could mean many things at many different times. No significant coverage. AusLondonder ( talk) 06:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete The phrase is plain English, the article is useless. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Swedish organizations by number of members

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

There is no notability or significance asserted by this article. The article was PRODed some years ago and the creator removed the tag asserting notability simply because the organisations had "millions of members". However, per WP:CSC, I see no reason this article should be retained for its inherent notability or navigational usefulness. Triptothecottage ( talk) 02:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 03:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 03:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Most of the statistics didn't have citations, and I don't know why this article was created or who would search for this. Imalawyer ( talk) 05:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete This is an indiscriminate list. Membership is not comparable between organizations because it means different things in different organizations. Comparing with figures from different years makes it even less meaningful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Most of the numbers are unsourced anyhow. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:32, 20 March 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 08:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Fazoland 1.5

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

Non-notable mixtape Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 22:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 02:20, 26 March 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. While brief, consensus was that nothing had changed since last, recent, AfD discussion. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Fu Jen-kun

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

Lack of sources, non-notable person per Notable persons criteria, orphan UserDe ( talk) 04:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep The article was on AFD just a month ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fu Ren-Kun Timmyshin ( talk) 17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep in agreement with Timmyshin. Notability was established in previous AfD. The article needs to be improved, and there is a long bibliography in the history that some scholarly person could sort through. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keith C Bradbury's The Heir of Katan

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

Declined WP:PROD. This appears to be non-notable book: no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per WP:GNG nor any criteria of WP:NBOOK. The user who created this article appears connected to a company affiliated with author Keith C Bradbury. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete There is no proof of notability and the article exclusively cites primary sources. Imalawyer ( talk) 05:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Strike !vote of blocked sock. -- Kurykh ( talk) 00:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete both. I can't find anything to show that this series is ultimately notable enough for a series. I've also blocked the editor for having a promotional username, as it's the same acronym used for the company and their only edits have been to add Bradbury's work to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 19 March 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 Liberal Party (UK, 1989). ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Rob Wheway

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

Not notable enough. Alligators1974 ( talk) 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to Liberal Party (UK, 1989): Neither a one-year term as president of a small party nor a term as an elected member of a local council is sufficient for WP:POLITICIAN criteria 1 or 3. Nor am I seeing the coverage which could meet criterion 2 and while the subject's other activity has had some coverage I think it falls short of the broader WP:BASIC criteria for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 10:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

redirect to [[Liberal Party (UK, 1989) sounds ideal Alligators1974 ( talk) 23:05, 23 March 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. While the issue of OR is problematic, I think those questions were answered in the responses in the discussion. As was the NEO question. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

A-CEEI mechanism

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

WP:OR, lacks citations, fails N for neologisms. Possible merge with Competitive Equilibrium. ^{Atsme
📞
📧} 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

First, it is quite rude to nominate an article for deletion with such cryptic reasons. I spent a lot of time and effort in writing this article, so if you think it should be deleted, you should spend some effort in explaining your reasons in full English sentences rather than in barely-understandable codes. Now, regarding your reasons:

This is not Original Research. It is a summary of a paper published in top economics journal, with 167 citations.
The sources on which the article are based are well-cited. I agree that it could be good to extend the article with more material and add more citations, but this is not a reason for deletion.
I do not understand what you mean by "fails N for neologisms". I think this reason should be deleted since it is unclear. If you refer to the acronym "A-CEEI" in the title - it is the formal name given to this mechanism in the cited paper.
It should NOT be merged with Competitive Equilibrium. The concepts are related but different. Competitive equilibrium (CE) is a usually a descriptive concept: it describes the situation in free market when the price stabilizes and the demand equals the supply. CEEI is usually a normative concept: it describes a rule for dividing commodities between people. It is inspired by the concept of CE but used in very different contexts and meanings.

-- Erel Segal ( talk) 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, "fails N for neologism" is rather ~~nonsensical~~ confusing, as the oft-cited WP:N refers to something else entirely. The guideline in that case would be WP:NEO. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Shawn in Montreal thanks for the link, but I still do not understand, why this specific article is considered a neologism? -- Erel Segal ( talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

To begin, we have thousands of problematic and/or questionable articles that are unassessed, and in this particular case my shorthand was supported by the wikilink to the applicable policy. We use a "curation tool" so when you're going through multiple articles with multiple issues, an editor is likely to use shorthand which some may not understand. Ok, so I suck at remembering all the acronyms but that article lacks citations which is why I called it OR. Shawn in Montreal had you clicked on the blue link where I tagged the article, you would have seen it was linked to WP:NEO. Erel Segal this is not about me being rude - it was actually rude of you to call me rude - it's about me doing my volunteer job as a new page patroller helping to clean-up some of the obnoxious backlog. If you think a single paper published in a credible economics journal passes the policy requirement, then you have no reason to be concerned. State your case, and let the AfD run its course. In the interim, I recommend cleaning up the article so it appears more like an encyclopedic article with citations instead of paper published in an economics journal. ^{Atsme
📞
📧} 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Atsme A wikilink to the applicable policy is not enough since it does not explain why you think that this specific article violates the policy. We are all doing volunteer job here... this does not exempt us from politeness.
I understand that you do not have time to carefully read and assess all the new articles, but, this does not mean you should mark for deletion any article that you are unsure about. If you are unsure about the value of a new article, it is better to first contact the main author and ask for clarification. -- Erel Segal ( talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Citing a single published paper in a journal doesn't equate into encyclopedic acceptance of a procedure the article claims to be notable based on citing two sources while the majority of the article remains unsourced. The lead of the article states: A-CEEI is a procedure for fair item assignment. The acronym stands for Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes. What substantiates the procedure as being notable? Is it in wide-spread use, or is the article attempting to make it acceptable? The majority of statements in the article lack citations, so I would think the presumption of OR is justified. Suggestion: cite more published RS. ^{Atsme
📞
📧} 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep I didn't know there was a subfield of economics dealing with quantitation of just allocation schemes, but there seems to be one and it seems to be quite interested in this idea. I find papers working out implementations [10] [11], proposing alternatives [12] [13], and criticizing its assumptions [14]. It's clearly not a neologism in the sense of NEO (having little or no usage in reliable sources such that it requires analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position). The alternative mghti be to merge to Resource allocation, but that article is much too undeveloped to contain and contextualize this idea. FourViolas ( talk) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

How come you get four violas while the rest of us have just one, or none? That hardly seems like a fair division. E Eng 00:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. I wasn't already familiar with this topic but Google scholar finds 167 other papers citing Budish's original paper, and 137 other papers containing the exact term "A-CEEI". I think that's well above the threshold of notability for an academic concept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

comment - the keeps and/or article creator need to add sources to the material in the article or move it to draft space because as it sits now, all but one section remains unsourced which lends credence to the belief there may be a violation of WP:NOR. ^{Atsme
📞
📧} 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. I agree that the article would be improved by incorporating more sources, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. FourViolas ( talk) 14:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Understood, but the overall appearance leans to OR. ^{Atsme
📞
📧} 13:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ah, that's a fundamental error (no offence meant): you can't assess OR or notability by looking at an article. You have to look at the world outside to do that. The question is whether sufficient reliable sources exist, not whether some editor has cited them in the article. Of course, doing the latter makes it easy for everyone to see that the former is true, which is helpful, but it's not necessary for a keep at AfD. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 02:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, clearly widely accepted by academics in its field. I think we should rename the article by spelling out the acronym immediately this AfD is closed. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Urban Design Associates

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

The Phoenix-based Urban Design Associates does not appears to not meet the minimum criteria for company notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears this article is linked to by only one other Wikipedia article, and that the company is a small five person firm (three of the five being related family members), and the article appears to have been written and posted by the firm's founder simply cutting-and-pasting the content from their website. - see Talk:Urban_Design_Associates AliceStanley11 ( talk) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 11:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as corporate spam with its hallmark -- external links in body. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete no mention in published works found online beyond a couple of list entries for private houses in Professional Builder. Not to be confused with the firm of the same name based in Pittsburgh, which could well achieve notability [15] : Noyster (talk), 18:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The wolves of lacey

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

Appears to be an essay of some kind; while I suppose the content could be merged to Lacey, Washington, or to an article about a North American wolf species, I don't see how this is anything more than original research and some kind of paper. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 01:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 01:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 01:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as a hoax. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)Speedy delete as a hoax. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:57, 18 March 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 08:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hayley Angela Gilbert

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

Only one verifiable source (huffpost) and doesn't seem to meet the guidelines on notability... TJH2018 talk 18:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: Non trival notability is seen. Alarmbaby ( talk) 04:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)— Alarmbaby ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep: Actress off to a good start in a 14 year old Career. Reoccurring role in the TV seies Vignettes. She now hosts her own live talk show Sonic Box which debuted last year. Karl Twist ( talk) 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete for lack of independent and non-trivial sources. Up and coming actor, but fails WP:NACTOR and is WP:TOOSOON. Bear in mind that one can make a living without being notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Scr★pIron^IV 14:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete In the article, zero usable sources, outside the article I find the usual puffery only. E Eng 18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment in relation to EEng's post 18:38, 3 March 2017. Quote: "zero usable sources". - Well, we can use one source among a few others. The Huffington Post article Exclusive Interview with Hayley Angela Gilbert: Comedian, Actress and Talk Show Host by Akshat Thapa seems fine. The Girls Mag article Hayley Angela Gilbert Talking About Her Latest video which is about her role in Yuksek’s latest music video "Sunrise" is very useful. You can watch the video on Youtube here. Not off to a tremendous galloping start with 89,119 views since it was uploaded on 4th November 2016. But a fairly respectable amount of views. The video is talked about in Clash - here, Musique.orange.fr - here, and many other notable online music news sources on Google News. There's also at least a dozen other articles about here in online magazines that you can find when you look around. Cheers Karl Twist ( talk) 12:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I meant zero sources usable for notability purposes, which was the case at the time I commented (interviews having no notability value, not being independent). Now that you've refbombed the article, we have a new problem: certainly most of the new refs aren't independent, but maybe some of them are. However, I'm not going to plow through it all looking. Can you just tell is which of these are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? E Eng 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and the recently-added filmography shows very clearly that it is too soon for an article. The article lead mentions her playing Anne Frank in a local production of Anne Frank's Diary, certainly an important part in that play but it was not a notable production; her one-time appearance in a notable TV show; and two appearances together with notable actors (where one of the claims is not sourced, namely her appearance in She Wants Me, which I can't find any sourcing for at all). All these things indicate that it is simply too soon for an article. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment, Reply to Bonadea's 10:21, 4 March 2017 post. Quote: "her one-time appearance in a notable TV show" - Hi, Bonadea. Well there's more than one show. She has acted in Crime Team, Episode: The Cut Throat Killer / Bournemouth Ladykiller, where she played the part of Constance. There's also Dream Team, Episode: Easy Come Easy Go. She played the part of Sally. She played the part of Rachel in Lynda La Plante's Trial & Retribution Part 1.. So that's 3. She played a journalist in Bad Girls. So that's 4. She also had parts in Mile High, Episode: #1.2, and Holby City. That makes 6.
Quote: - "namely her appearance in She Wants Me, which I can't find any sourcing for at all)" - As for She Wants Me, there are 2 refs here that prove she was in the film. They are at Aveleyman, and The Huffington Post - here. There's probably more. Anyway, I'm more than satisfied that she is notable. Karl Twist ( talk) 12:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you - this makes it very clear that this talented actor is not yet notable enough per Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Many minor parts in notable productions don't "count", nor do major parts in nonnotable productions. WP:NACTOR is obviously not yet met, and when she does meet the criteria, somebody who is not connected to her or her marketing team will create an article about her. -- bonadea contributions talk 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Reply to Bonadea's 23:11, 4 March 2017 post. She has had 3 roles in notable series that are significant. Also a significant role in a feature film. Right now she is getting increasing coverage for her role in Sonic Box. Also here at Huffington Post - here. and many online magazines are picking up on her. Notable! 10:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep : passes WP:NACTOR -She has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances and other productions Abrahamherews ( talk) 15:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Provided references fall short of satisfying WP:GNG, and I found nothing better. -- Finngall ^talk 22:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NACTOR is pretty cut and dry here. Does the actress have multiple, significant rolls in notable television or films? Looking at this person's bio, no, they don't. Valeince ( talk) 01:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment She has acted in a number of films and televisions in significant roles and also hosts couple of Televisions shows. clearly passes WP:NACTOR Abrahamherews ( talk) 07:37,

Which shows or films are you suggesting that meet the criteria of being notable, and which roles of her's are major roles in those notable shows and films? Because I can't find any that match those two points. Valeince ( talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

8 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this looked like it might barely pass the notability guidelines, I fixed the duplicate citations and took a quick look at each of the current sources. Here's what I've got on if each one works for keeping the article:

Huffington Post – ~~Yes~~ No due to author. See comment thread below.
Celeb Fans – Maybe (Reliable Source?)
Showbizwatch.com – No (I don’t think it’s a valid RS as a film credit)
AMB Magazine.com – Maybe (Reliable Source?)
Nora Gouma Magazine – Maybe (Reliable Source?)
Flappers Comedy Club – No (Award is not notable, probably the same with the comedy club)
IMDB – IMDB is a disputable as a RS, but this is as close to valid as you can get for IMDB
Horror Society and Dread Central – No (I don’t think it’s a valid RS as a film credit)
Aveleyman, Cinemagia.ro, Filmtips – Maybe as a film credit
PR.Com – Probably not an independent source
Spreaker Inc., Girls Mag, Daily Style Entertainment - Yes (Reliable Sources?)
Wn.com – No (Not an independent source as it was written by Hayley)
IMDB – See previous IMDB entry.

If the ones I flagged as maybe reliable are actually reliable sources, then I think this is a weak keep that needs some work but is otherwise salvageable. I'll let more experienced Wikipedia minds determine that. If not, Delete for now as WP:TOOSOON. ZettaComposer ( talk) 13:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 01:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment to ZettaComposer's thoughtful commentary on each source. I would not classify the Huff Post piece as a source that counts towards notability, as it was written by an "Authority Marketing and Personal Branding expert at [marketing company] who helps corporations, business professionals, actors, music artists, and authors gain national media exposure." In addition, it's not actually part of Huffington Post's own journalistic content, but, per the infobox next to the interview, "hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to [the] site." Which is another way of saying that the interview was published in order to garner publicity for the subject, it is not a sign of her being in fact notable. I'm still firmly in the delete camp. -- bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Totally disagree with bonadea. The title of the article is "Exclusive Interview with Hayley Angela Gilbert: Comedian, Actress and Talk Show Host", and that's what it is, An article read by the Huffington Post readers! Karl Twist ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
That is entirely beside the point. The question was "Is this a reliable source here" and my assessment was that it isn't, for the reasons given above - it is evidently part of a promotional effort. Nobody said it wasn't an interview, but then again, interviews are normally considered very weak evidence of notability. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Reply to Bonadea's 10:58, 20 March 2017 post. "That is entirely beside the point. The question was "Is this a reliable source here" and my assessment was that it isn't, for the reasons given above - it is evidently part of a promotional effort." - No! It doesn't matter if it was a promotional effort or not. The article (whatever it was) appeared in The Huffington Post which is a reliable and well used source in Wikipedia. Many articles are a form of promotion in one way or another. This was an in-depth interview by Akshat Thapa which was published in the Huffington Post! It wasn't written and published in some back-street magazine with a circulation of 2000. A valid and reliable reference source.
What you also neglect to mention is that in the Crime Team episode The Cut Throat Killer/Bournemouth Ladykiller, she had the main role as Constance. [16] In Dream Team episode Easy Come Easy Go, she had the main role as Sally. [17] She also appeared in Yuksek's music video "Sunrise" as the leading female character. [18] She is featured in many online magazines too. Karl Twist ( talk) 09:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The journalistic content of The Huffington Post is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, but the Contributor Platform, which has no editorial oversight, is not. Please see this discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Some other major reliable sources have similar arrangements, such as the CNN iReport, which is not accepted as a reliable source in Wikipedia even though the journalistic content in CNN meets WP:RS. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes I saw that but I also see many similar being fine for refs. As it appears in the Huff, more than acceptable. Also you still don't recognize her lead roles in notable television shows and other. Karl Twist ( talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Great point, next time I'll make sure to pay closer attention to the author. I took another look at the Huffington Post article and the author's contributor page clearly shows that he is a PR guy that writes articles to increase exposure, so this would not work as a source to show notability. I amended my post above accordingly, and I'm leaning more towards delete as this is looking more like a WP:TOOSOON case. ZettaComposer ( talk) 11:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, in spite of the unsupported claims by some of the above editors, and sourcing doesn't show how they meet WP:GNG. Of course the Huffpo article doesn't count. PR never counts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hermann Bellinghausen

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

Only reference to this WP:BLP is a NYT article that gives only a passing mention of the subject, a mention which shows no notability. Thus, fails WP:GNG. First Light ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter ( talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Only coverage is one mention in an article so fails WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
delete fails BIO Jytdog ( talk) 03:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Skytorrents

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

This search engine may not have enough notability to be a wiki- although it may have search engine hits, most of them are to itself or to comment pages. Also, the entire article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. JacobiJonesJr ( talk) 22:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Family Fun Pack

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

This YouTube channel is not notable. Just because it only has a few references to reliable sources doesn't mean it should have its own article. The subscribers are probably just little kids who accidentally hit the subscribe button. Alsamrudo ( talk) 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete Fails GNG, you'd think a channel with 4 million subscribers would have more external references. South Nashua ( talk) 14:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Samantha Cabiles

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. See http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs_cr_00014206.htm Hergilei ( talk) 21:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

ZoomEssence

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

Very thin sources as to actual notability -- most sources are links to trademark databases and similar general info that don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. There are a couple articles that mention the existence of the company (hiring new employees, being awarded a minor R&D grant) but nothing that adds up to WP:ORG. A Google search doesn't reveal any major press that isn't already listed. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 11:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Tyson Paul

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

James Poole

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

No evidence of notability. Some of the places he worked and some of the games he worked on are notable, but that does not mean that every employee who worked on those games is also notable. Guy Macon ( talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: as nominator. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability Neiltonks ( talk) 17:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Poole is well known in the industry and was a significant contributor to many classic games, as well as supplying this insight into the rise and fall of Ion Storm — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldSchoolVideoGames ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Do you have any sources that meet those requirements? - Guy Macon ( talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017‎ (UTC) reply
Vague anecdotes usually aren't worth much in these discussions. Do you have any third party sources that discuss him in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Almost entirely unsourced BLP. Even if sources are found, a WP:TNT would probably be in order, as the article in no way resembles an encyclopedic article. For starters, over half of the article consists of a direct quote from him from a messageboard... Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per the comments by Serge. GamerPro64 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I'm afraid I only see promotional sources. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Esther Tosin Adekeye

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

The Biography of this person has questionable notability. TopCipher 07:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep Article meets WP:GNG requirements and also the sources to the person in question are properly cited. Tobi19 ( talk) 11:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:RS as no sources were found on GNEWS. Zazzysa ( talk) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete: Trivial mentions in reliable sources, promotional interviews in semi-reliable sources plus the possibility of COI makes me tend towards deletion. Unilag F.M isn't a major radio station, so being an OAP for them counts for nothing. But there are reliable sources on her, not just significant enough for inclusion IMO. Darreg ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per Darreg. The subject has not been discussed in significant detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep The subject meets notability requirements, however some peacock terms were used such as describing her tweetchat as "the most popular tweet chat in Nigeria". I have reviewed the article and removed the unverifiable claims. I believe it should be kept. Ps: UnilagFm is a notable radio station in Lagos, Nigeria. The sources for most of the information on the subject are reliable. Pastorflex ( talk) 10:22, 25 March 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 Unwed Sailor. Procedural merge. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Firecracker EP

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

Contested redirect and PROD. Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Redirect was contested so I suggest a complete deletion unless there is evidence that there are a lot of page views. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Author Keep/Merge/Procedural Close. This is the wrong venue for the action the nominator is attempting to accomplish. He first redirected the article to the artist page; I reverted and suggested a merge to the artist article or to a unified discography article, since the current article is composed of encyclopedic discographical information, even if it's probably not enough to merit a stand-alone article (under current consensus rules). Rather than support a merge, the nominator moved on to PROD and now AfD the article. But deletion isn't a sensible action to take; even if the content is merged, it would still be desirable to leave a redirect to the artist discography. Chubbles ( talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- As I wrote on my talk page, when you moved the discussion from your talk page to mine against the edit notice on my page, you're welcome to move the unsourced content to wherever you want. The deletion discussions don't preclude that. What's not sensible is keeping an article that fails notability guidelines around just so someone can some day merge the content somewhere. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  - From whence this "move it or lose it" demand? I fail to see why the nominator feels justified in making demands of me as a volunteer under threat of deletion. I don't feel compelled to execute the merge myself, though he is welcome to do it. In any case, deletion is not a legitimate course of action to take here even if the article is judged non-notable; merging is, in that case. Chubbles ( talk) 07:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - I was able to find an AllMusic review, so its very existence can be sourced at least. I can't find anything else yet, so I can't warrant a "keep" yet, but I'd be against a "Delete" as well - its a plausible search term and has a source to verify some very basic info, so worst case scenario should be a redirect/merge scenario - it'd be easy to write a sentence or two about the release in the band's article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge to Unwed Sailor. Unless more coverage can be found, there simply isn't enough to justify a separate article. -- Michig ( talk) 09:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge - As I mentioned above, I couldn't find enough to meet the WP:GNG, but its a plausible search term (its the band's first release) and there are some passing-mention Allmusic sources that can verify a few basic sentences about it at the band's article. Against outright deletion though. ("Page views" aren't a valid deletion rationale anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge to Unwed Sailor per above comments. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment I have merged to the content to Unwed Sailor and the new page Unwed Sailor discography. If the nominator has no objections, we can close this AfD and redirect this title to the discography page. Chubbles ( talk) 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Juman Suman

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

No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions. I can't find any reviews nor better sources that would allow us to improve the article beyond the current content which, despite a plethora of sources, is not entirely verifiable. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 10:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as a directory listing of no encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Allegiance Communications

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

This article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing remarkable about it to be on Wikipedia. The content highlights usual announcements about mergers and acquisitions which any other company of this clout would be doing. Xaxing ( talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing ( talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing ( talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing ( talk) 05:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: A defunct operation which was acquired and merged into another business (which itself does not have an article so is not a Redirect target). I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements to indicate that it achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Blue Ridge Bank

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

I'm nominating this (even though it was created by experienced editor) because I can't find news articles about it, and it I'm not getting any vibes from GNG on how an itty bitty bank is notable. L3X1 (distant write) 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: I can only find routine local news coverage and trivial mentions. SL93 ( talk) 03:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Sightline Institute

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

Fails WP:GNG Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak delete: I have added several references indicating this Institute's activity over the past couple of decades (and do think an encyclopaedia can play a reasonable role for a "who is saying this?" query regarding one of their reports) but unless someone can identify in-depth coverage about the Institute itelf, I am afraid this isn't enough for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 08:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete - borderline case, but I don't, as the above editors also found, think that this organization passes WP:ORGDEPTH, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Faces_(Candyland_song)

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

Not notable. Jd02022092 ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Article has multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of this song. Meets WP:NSONG. Gab4gab ( talk) 17:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep or redirect - Article has multiple sources, and can be redirected to Candyland (musician). -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 18 March 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. The only keep comes from a WP:SPA, and provides no arguments why the sources satisfy WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Sam Logan Khaleghi

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

Non-notable producer lacking in-depth significant support. Awards appear to be minor in nature. reddogsix ( talk) 04:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

There are many kinds of "Emmy" -- and in this case, according to IMDb, the nomination seems to be from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences College Television Awards, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter ( talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete The search link above does not give any independent reliable sources. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Article has been updated with more references. This article is legitimate. Mtbj25 ( talk) 22:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Lovely Joshi

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

Fails WP:GNG: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I failed to find anything to support her role in any film listed in the article except Dear vs Bear. GSS ( talk| c| em) 13:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 13:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 13:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter ( talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - as per nom. As they said, not finding anything to back up the claims in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

List of longest-running Tamil Language television series

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

Unreferenced, trivial list. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: This might be a worthy list topic (as per WP:SAL), but not the way it is currently presented – e.g. see List of longest-running United States television series, which is ordered by number of season/years, not number of episodes. And, yes – it needs to be sourced... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter ( talk) 00:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

VistaPE

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinBuilder

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

Definitely fails WP:GNG. This article is also unsourced. DrDevilFX ( talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts but no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter ( talk) 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have added a link to the 2010 Winbuilder AfD above, as it included VistaPE as a secondary entry. AllyD ( talk) 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect: This article became secondarily involved in the 2010 AfD mentioned above. Looking at the discussion and the links, VistaPE does not seem to have risen above a particular project/scripting instance of the tool, without evidence of notability in its own right. A redirect to the WinBuilder article is a possible alternative to outright deletion. AllyD ( talk) 14:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Prometheus (Zoltán Deme film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter ( talk) 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as original research. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per pretty much every relevant policy and guideline. No evidence of notability, no RS, it's not NPOV and it's clearly OR. Guy ( Help!) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 25 March 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. If it were just a matter of WP:N, I would probably call this No Consensus, with a call for some major editing. But, there's enough here to make it doubtful this meets WP:V, which is a much stricter requirement. Anybody who still feels we should have an article about this person is encouraged to start a new version from scratch, in draft space, and make sure to address the concerns here about better sources and making sure everything is verifiable. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

KH Kim

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

1. This entire entry is "made up" with no reliable sources for the long family history and personal story that is part of the narrative. No sources are found on the web to corroborate anything biographical that has been written in the entry- the content is not verifiable. 2. Suspicion of "socking" in this entry. The entry may be "self-authored" under different aliases. HangulRover ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - article needs lots of work and I agree that personal biography elements are un-referenced and disproportionately long. However, she is cited multiple times in national magazines (Forbes, Newsweek, Economist) for her studies on creativity. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you re listing the article. As mentioned before, the entire entry reads like a personal soap opera with ridiculous statements that are not verifiable. The multiple citations are simply quotes from this person mentioned in magazines- there is no "feature article" about her work anywhere except in her personal pages. Furthermore the google scholar citations are erroneous as it lists numerous others KH Kim's who work in the biomedical sciences and have thousands of citations. The KH Kim under consideration only has an h-index of 15 and not the inflated one listed.

The person does not have a titular position at William and Mary, and is an Associate Professor of Educational Foundations- Not Professor of Innovation and Creativity as listed by this page- this can be checked at the William and Mary pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HangulRover ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The so-called "featured on the cover of Newsweek" story was checked and it contains 3 lines mentioning this person besides a host of numerous other researchers who have also studied the "creativity" problem. Stating her study was featured on the cover of Newsweek is a fabrication, or the very least stretching the actual facts.

The entry states Kim is a descendent of King Gyeongsun (897–978), the last ruler of the kingdom of Silla - there is no evidence of this "royal lineage" anywhere! HangulRover ( talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The entry contained numerous fabrications such as royal lineage which was unverifiable; a professorship of creativity which was checked to be an associate professor of eduction position; and numerous other assertions that read like a personal soap opera with no 3rd party sources to verify the trials, tribulations and triumphs of this "luminary" from South Korea. Wikipedia is not an outlet for fabrication and self promotion. The entry was full of fraudulent claims and should be deleted from Wikipedia HangulRover ( talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC) contribs) HangulRover ( talk) 01:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, but only in its trimmed-down state. The article as nominated was heavily promotional. And it's difficult to get an accurate estimate of the citation counts for her works because her Google Scholar profile [19] is larded up with papers by other people with similar names, but the ones that actually list KH Kim in the authors and have something about creativity in the titles are probably hers and have enough citations for WP:PROF#C1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete, The recommendations of David Eppstein were checked in terms of actual papers and citations. There are less than 10 papers that are actually this person's work and the h-index is actually 8 or 9. Also the person does not hold a titular position at William and Mary to warrant a notable listing but is actually an "associate professor of education". By fabricating the significance of her so-called study "featured" in Newsweek- when in fact dozens of others were also "featured" in the actual article, and simply juicing up the article with ridiculous claims pursuing multiple Phds, "royal lineage" and what not, the credibility of this article is called into question. There is suspicion of both socking and ghost auto-biographing this piece for the sake of free publicity. Wikipedia is not an outlet for fabrication and self promotion. HangulRover ( talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC) contribs) reply
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and scholar searches did not show that they pass WP:SCHOLAR or WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 25 March 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. Meets NBOOK, as shown by Lourdes. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The Invisible Edge

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

Non-notable book. The only sources are reviews on IP Watchdog (a blog); in Automation World (an industry-specific publication); and a passing mention in an otherwise unrelated press release.

This book and its authors Mark Blaxill and Ralph Eckardt have a history of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes; each of their articles, and the article on the book, have been deleted multiple times: two speedies ( log) for the book; a speedie ( log) and one AFD ( here) for Blaxill; and two AFDs ( here and again after re-creation here) for Eckardt.

This re-creation a week ago seems to be the latest attempt at WikiPromotion. The article was created by WP:SPA editor GalaxyK1D ( talk · contribs), whose sole contribution has been to create this article. It's not clear to me whether this editor is the same individual as Kwenkbodenmiller ( talk · contribs), who was responsible for the prior now-deleted articles, or merely their successor. TJRC ( talk) 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep I could find one good review in Strategy+Business. [20] While Harvard Business School's review is trivial and not independent, [21] the review in ipwatchdog.com [22] is quite acceptable. IPwatchdog.com is a hall of fame inductee in the American Bar Association's top 100 blogs, so can't be discredited. These two reviews allow the book to qualify under WP:NBOOK, which requires two reviews only for a book to be considered notable. Additionally, the book is a suggested reading in courses at Stanford University [23], Aston University, [24] Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship [25] etc. This too makes the book qualify under WP:NBOOK, under the university reading criterion. Also, this book is cited multiple times by researchers. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Lourdes 14:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment, it has also been reviewed by Financial Executive [34] Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 18 March 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 Kamehameha Schools. Compromise between keep and delete. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Kamehameha Schools Song Contest

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

Article was Prod deleted on December 26, 2016, only to be recreated a few days later bv Kamehamehasongcontest. There's no sourcing provided which shows that this is anything more that a local school song contest and not Wikipedia notable per WP:NEVENT. All of the sources are primary and most of the content being added by various IPs is unsourced BLP type of stuff. I've tried to fine better sourcing myself, but have not had much luck. I also asked about this at WT:HAWAII#Kamehameha Schools Song Contest, but so far have not gotten a response. I asked the admin who deleted the article about it at User talk:Explicit#Kamehameha Schools Song Contest, and was advised to bring it to AfD.

Someone did add a {{ mergeto}} template to the article in January 2016, but there does not seem to have been any discussion about it. It might be possible to redirect/merge the article into Kamehameha Schools#Song Contest, but that section is also unsourced and some serious trimming would need to be done for that to be done right. I'm not sure how to categorize this debate so I'm going to leave it as "U" for now. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - I was heading down a Delete route until I looked for secondary sources. There are a small number, so it may just creep across the Notability threshold. CalzGuy ( talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge into Kamehameha Schools. It is primarily of local interest only, and any notability independent from the school itself is marginal at best. Once the minutia and trivia is trimmed from the song contest article, there isn't anything more to say than what can fit nicely at the parent article about the school. Deli nk ( talk) 19:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: After looking at some of the sources found by CalzGuy, I think they are probably OK per WP:V to source content about the contest in Kamehameha Schools#Song Contest, but I'm not sure if there's enought to support a stand-alone article. Most of the coverage is local, so it does not seem to be enough per WP:GEOSCOPE. Only the Huffington Post articles seem to be anything outside of Hawaii. One of the articles here is a blog which may be OK per WP:NEWSBLOG for citing as a source, but not helpful for notability. The other article here seems to be more of a trivial mention of the contest as part of an article about the a particular singer, so it also doesn't really help towards notability. Anyway, redirects are cheap so maybe a redirect to the school article is now appropriate and the new sources can be used there. I do have a concern that the article will probably be recreated. The AfD template has already been removed by two IPs, and the article was re-created shortly after in was prod deleted. Will a consensus here to redirect/merge preclude any recreation of the article? A merge is also possible, but some major trimming is going to be needed since I don't think the school article could support the amount of (unsourced) detail added by IPs to the contest's article. Maybe a table listing the winners supported by sources could be added (a primary source is probably OK here) along with the image of the program, but not sure about anything more than that. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge with Kamehameha Schools. It's significant to these schools, but doesn't seem to receive attention elsewhere. Imalawyer ( talk) 05:47, 18 March 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh ( talk) 00:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Isopress AG

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

fails WP:NCORP The Banner talk 09:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, interesting part of swiss plastic industrie history / thermoset components. FFA P-16 ( talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

interesting is not enough (and very personal) so have a look at the german wikipedia: [35] -- 2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:302A:8FCC:778F:F72A ( talk) 21:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 00:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

K. V. Gautam

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. WP:REFFLOOD does not confer notability. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep there is plenty of coverage in secondary reliable sources-- perhaps not as significant as one would like, but there is a lot of coverage in many sources. The page is a bit of a nauseating advertisement, but that does not cancel out the fact that he is mentioned and covered in a non-routine manner in moree than a dozen sources. He was also the subject of a film. 104.163.140.193 ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes! A lot of covrage reagrding Bigg Boss 10 and author of 2 non-notable books fails WP:AUTHOR. GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per Sportsfan 1234 non-notable person. FITINDIA (talk) 13:32, 23 March 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.

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook