Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 December	2 January >

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porch Pirates

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

If Wikipedia were to have an article on this topic, it would need to be a rewrite at Package theft. This article is marketing copy from a personal security equipment company. Υπογράφω (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio confirmed. Eventually with the infringing content, there is not enough context to identify the subject. When the infringing content is removed, the article is short enough to satisfy A1. There are no non-infringing revisions. I have tagged this for G12. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a copyvio already, and then the article creator (and, I presume, the source website owner) added a CC license to the source. So I don't think G12 is applicable. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the copyright licence, this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all (the licensed content is from a blog). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:STARTOVER. This is an advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Only the dictionary definition appears to be reliably sourced. I'm not yet convinced that package theft needs a stand-alone article. Even if it does, this article would need a fundamental rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Licensed content from unreliable blog of security firm garbled with passing mention of the term in some sources in order to promote neologism apparently invented by them. This can't be included on Wikipedia per core WP:NOT policy and no evidence this concept exists in mainstream body of literature –Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. The article inarguably sucks at the moment. Unencyclopedic in tone and generally full of fluff. A fluff-ectomy would kill the patient. If the NYT editor hadn't been so tickled by the term "porch pirate" as to include it in the headline, we would have speedied this. A Train^talk 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aqeel Solangi

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Dubious sources,in conflict with WP:BLP The Banner talk 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything dubious or in conflict with WP:BLP about the sources linked in the "external links" section. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a massive vanity page. Sources given are for exhibition catalog essays, which are, but nature, essentially self-published. No reliable sources fond in a web search. suggest delete and salt since this has been deleted befroe and appears to be a vanity project.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are this and this, to select just two of the external links from the article, "exhibition catalog essays, which are, but nature, essentially self-published"? They are independent reviews of this artist's work. Of course the article is currently written in a very promotional way, but the subject is clearly notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page written seems like promotional prose and it needs to be rewritten, however it meets WP:GNG as search found here [1], [2] and [3]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you are right, but seeing this sockpuppet investigation is not adding to its reliability. Three of the four main editors were sockpuppets (the other is the file_delinkerbot). The Banner talk 15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per WP:TNT and failure of WP:NARTIST. Not enough coverage and clear COI. Störm (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional BLP containing OR created by a blocked sock puppet. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immad Akhund

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

An advertorially-toned page on a nn entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is a lot of self-promotion, interviews, and other WP:SPIP sources. Sourced to likewise unsuitable sources, some of which are routine notices about the subject's company, which has been deleted via PROD. Created by Special:Contributions/Yasnim with four total edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Themes

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

It doesn't look like a single one of the ten sources cited is independent of the subject. Two of the members of the band have articles of their own, but it isn't clear that they're independently notable (or even notable at all). KSFT ^(t|c) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn See comment below. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Light

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

Not seeing evidence of notability here. Sources are only brief mentions or not reliable sources. I couldn't find anything better when I searched. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Light is a major figure in the history of professional wrestling in the United States, being one of the founders of the cartel that controlled professional wrestling for several decades. Light is in particular a key figure in the history of professional wrestling in Detroit, given that he "controlled grappling in the Detroit area for nearly 20 years" and produced one of the most highly-watched television programs in Detroit. McPhail (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to believe that he is a non-notable figure. References, especially those in the book on the history of pro-wrestling are reliable sources. There are wrestler articles out there that can't claim notability, but this isn't one of them. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm actually surprised how well sourced the article is given how hard it is to find wrestling sources from his era. McPhail lays out a good case for notability and he passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first source, which the article is based almost entirely on, is ok. But the issue is that the only good one. The rest are trivial mentions or not reliable source. Wikipedia generally requires multiple good sources. However, if sources are difficult to come by for this topic during this period of history, perhaps I have misjudged this one. A bit of a borderline call anyway, so I'll withdraw my nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vgrooves

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

The PROD was removed but my rationale is still entirely relevant. I can't say much different from my original statement: The first source applied here actually isn't half bad but that seems to be the only one; he certainly does not pass WP:GNG because the others, both in the article and in searches, are primary sources. The rest is within the context of musicians he produced but notability is not inherited. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lacks coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet notability standards. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obasi Igwe

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. The citation level is not really all that good for political science. He is a respectable working political scientist, but nothing suggests that he has reached the level of significant impact in the field that the notability guidelines for academics require, and nothing else in his work suggests notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Sufficient in depth coverage to sustain article. gidonb (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Mentioned only peripherally in the one newspaper story used as a reference, not good enough for WP:GNG. And while "Politics and Globe Dictionary" has quite a respectable number of publications (162 in Google scholar) we would need more than a single well-cited publication to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACADEMIC and weak claims on "respectable number of publications" under WP:PROF#C1 nor achieves any signification impact in the field he practices. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BizWest

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

Local business newspaper with zero evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like listing for a nn business website / publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well an Admin with a hate on for me gutted it. I consider all long running print publications notable but I don't really care about this page. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has two solid/reliable sources. It is a bona fide business publication that appears to have good quality. Given the quality of the online publication, it will only grow in importance. I removed the dead links from the article.Knox490 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cited sources are not WP:RELIABLE as they do not have bylines. Unable to find reliable coverage in my own search. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh?! How does not having a byline make a story in The Denver Post or Fort Collins Coloradoan not reliable? WP:NEWSORG says news reporting from well-established newspapers such as these is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage possibly primarily based on a press release. If no one at the paper has put their name on the article, it is not clear it has received editorial control. I don't assume everything put out by a reliable source has the same level of reliability. Presence of a byline is one thing I look at. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources in the article. I see no particular reason why this article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sousa Dias

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

I can't find the slightest indication that this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Admittedly I'm hampered by being restricted to searching in English only, but I don't see that he would pass any of the NPROF criteria based on the checks I've done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a professor of philosophy who has published books is not in and of itself enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reviews of his book. That may be merely because of the language barrier, but without them I don't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And similarly, although his book has over 100 citations in Google scholar, it's not by itself enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Sonic

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

I've done my best but can't find enough substantive content to justify keeping this article. The most significant coverage I can find are two reviews on Exclaim.ca ([4] and [5], one for each of their albums) and I just don't think it's enough. I've checked AllMusic, Google, GNews, GBooks, and Highbeam and come up dry.

That being said there may be electronic music RSes that I've missed, so I am happy to withdraw if anything substantive is located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Huckabee

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

David Huckabee only made minor contributions to his fathers political campaigns and is otherwise not notable. The current article focuses on minor misconduct, some of which was reported to take place while the subject was a juvenile. Billhpike (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough of a political role to be notable on his own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --This article serves a great example of why the hierarchy of Wikipedia policies needs to have common sense applied. One group will point to GNG and say "lots of press, notable." Another group will say "notability is not inherited;" I am in the second group. The subject would not have any press coverage save for his family name. It's the same discussion as for Jack Schlossberg, but even more obvious. Rhadow (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Delete" arguments involve the GNG; "keep" arguments mostly point to a now-adjusted consensus. Sources are pointed at by Davey2010 but adding "Vasundhara" to the search dramatically reduces the results; specific evidence of reliable sources that warrant "keep per GNG" are not provided by anyone. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public School

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

This is a school with no information about it save that a bus carrying its students caught fire and a bus driver suffered burns; this coincidentally happened a year after the 2008 Mumbai Bombings, but that doesn't convey notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, school doesn't pass WP:GNG and news incident fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems the bus fire had widespread media attention at the time, as it was easy to find additional sources although it was more than eight years ago. I verified that the school is CBSE-affiliated and provides education through Class 12. I also found that the faculty might be outspoken about CBSE policies and standards, and added a couple of references. Does anyone have knowledge of Hindi and access to local media? Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The school also receives annual national media attention for achievements in the Centre for Science and Environment Green School Awards. Overall, this seems to be a "Keep" per WP:GNG as there is regular significant coverage from reliable sources since 2006. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a secondary school, and that is not disputed. Also there is coverage about it. --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I've not checked the page for a few years, Well consensus has always been to keep these so I'm still going with that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into sources for this school to see if it meets WP:GNG yet, Davey2010, but I'm not sure that is the consensus any more. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Shaheen School System (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the majority of AFDs these have all been closed as per the longstanding consensus, If you want to !vote please do so but I'm sticking with !keep as per that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will if I get time to investigate sources, Davey2010. I just wanted to give you fair warning that in recent school AfDs, votes accompanied only by the rationale that we keep schools per consensus were discounted in the assessment of consensus (see some of the closing statements). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources on the school - Not all are amazing however notability does look to just about be there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources appear to be about different Evergreen Public Schools, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be about this specific school Cordless Larry, It might be more productive if you were to stop replying to my !votes and instead !vote yourself, Although the article looks like it's gonna be kept so it's probably pointless !voting at this point. –Davey2010^Talk 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to try to do a proper assessment of sources to judge notability, Davey2010, and because you had provided a link I thought I would start from that. The majority of the sources it gives are about a school in Vancouver, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article. As an article of high school, it is 100 times better than thousands of high school stubs. More sources also have been added after the nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a good number of sources, enough to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. While the bus incident got some coverage, there doesn't appear to be broader, significant coverage of the school in reliable, secondary sources. An initial search appears to uncover quite a lot of coverage, but there are several schools with the same name, and most of the news sources appear to be about a Canadian school. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable for single event WP:NOTNEWS. Other sources are passing trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've re-opened this per my edit-summary; the question to be addressed seems very much the extent to which WP:OUTCOMES applies. I recuse, of course, from any subsequent closure or action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our policy to keep articles about secondary schools, as specified by Jimmy Wales. Such schools are notable, being significant public institutions and this seems to be no exception. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some links here, Andrew Davidson? At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 224#Schools (again), Jimbo states "My own views on this matter are of little importance, but I think that only in rare cases will high schools ("secondary schools") be suitable for an encyclopedia entry". I don't see how you can square that with your statement about him specifying that we keep secondary school articles per policy, but perhaps I have missed something? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, "as specified by Jimmy Wales"? Really? He's just another editor, who probably has a vague understanding of policy and guideline. We certainly shouldn't be using a WP:PERJIMBO argument anywhere on Wikipedia. He's not a "privileged user". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo established the policy in a mailing list discussion: Partial solution to rampant deletionism. At that time, his views were quite influential and so we now have thousands of articles about schools. It would be systemic bias to now exclude Indian ones. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's views are just one of millions of editors. That he established some kind of view is completely irrelevant, and being subservient to those views is certainly a failing by a terrible systemic bias to believe in WP:PERJIMBO. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable beyond one event. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent votes on secondary schools have shown that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is still highly relevant to the encyclopedia. Nominations for schools based on articles that were of verified schools but didn't pass GNG at the time, were after in depth searching able to be made notable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phor_Tay_High_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanglin_Trust_School. Of course the people who do this searching to improve school articles (rather than deleting) cannot always be around for deletion debates, nor can have the time, language skills, or access to local news (especially if it's offline) to add to the article within the time frame of a deletion debate.

This is why, the sensible option for schools that are proven to be verifiable (they actually exist) is not to delete them, as schools are focal points of communities and experience shows that there will almost always be sources to shoe notability, yet expecting wikipedia editors to do this within the frame of a AFD nom is not helpful to anyone. WP:BEFORE applies here, has the nominator done a thorough search? I would also like to know if the nominator contacted the editors of the school page, including the creator? How about adding the school to a relevant wikiproject? There is so, so much that can be done with school articles before deletion. Experience on wikipedia has shown that if they are verifiable they are more than likely to be relevant and notable. So, as long as the school is verifiable, It should be kept while sources are found. Egaoblai (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You better start reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES again and especially the RfC mentioned there... The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. As the much ignored RfC] about the notability of schools clearly states: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, but I also believe that in almost all cases public secondary schools are going to be notable. Deleting them just wastes time in acknowledging the ineligible. That's why we came to a consensus at one time that they were notable, and while it should not be considered an immutable truth, in the long run there will be an article, and it will take far more time and effort because we repeatedly destroy the article, and waste countless hours arguing about whether it should exist. Here's one vote for stopping the insanity sooner rather than later.Jacona (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors disagree about whether this crash is notable according to either general or special notability criteria. Sandstein 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash

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

Tragic but not notable aviation accident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (note: article creator): Seems too soon to nominate for deletion, but I acknowledge there are editors who are more familiar with aviation-related article standards than me. I created this article because I saw several other articles at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017 about accidents with fewer fatalities, and assumed this event was also notable. Seems there should be more other articles nominated for deletion, if this one get deleted... or I am not understanding eligibility criteria for articles about aviation incidents. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning towards keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Don't all fatal aviation accidents have articles? Why would someone want this one removed?? Donaldd23 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they do not. Fatal aviation accidents have standalone articles, as a rule, when: 1. procedures or regulations were altered as a result of the crash; 2. a Wikinotable (bluelinked) person was killed; or 3. it gains unusual WP:PERSISTENCE in media; these are especially important when a small aircraft (<12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) gros weight) is involved. None of those apply here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:, what is the source of this "rule", or is it just an opinion? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it's very long-standing consensus as partially codified in WP:AIRCRASH, which is based on the Federal Aviation Administration's certification requirements for aircraft (12,500lb is the cutoff point between "small" i.e. GA and "large" i.e. airliner aircraft). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No if we listed every fatal aviation accident we would have loads listed every day, which is why we only include those that are noteworthy for some reason (as measured by years of consensus) for example they involve somebody notable. In my opinion the tipping point is if this was a scheduled service or just a charter. If it was a chartered flight then it is not noteworthy which looks like the case here but just waiting for more info before I vote one way or another. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Any fatal aircraft crash typically is newsworthy, especially when most or all on board are killed. I see no reason to delete this article. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - wikipedia is NOT:NEWS so newsworthy does not indicate noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how air-crash notability works, per long consensus (see above), and WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above editors are correct, the fact that it is newsworthy does not give it encyclopedic notability. Light aircraft crashes are common enough to be considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, absent specific details that make the incident notable. No evidence of that exists here, and we don't keep Wikipedia articles just on the possibility they could become notable someday. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nature Air. Wikipedia is not the news and not a memorial. A tragic crash, but small aircraft crash rather more regularly than certified airliners do; there is not enough to indicate that this crash is any different than your "standard" small-aircraft crash. Now, that said, it almost certainly should be mentioned in an "Accidents and incidents" section of the article of the airline in question, Nature Air, but it doesn't clear the bar, as things are, for a standalone article, regardless of other stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to Keep per the accident's having had lasting repercussions on the company, as found by Mjroots below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): Light aircraft accidents are far too numerous to have a separate article for each. Most of these are not notable; media coverage is generally limited to a local news article and possibly some wire service coverage. This can be covered in the aircraft article (Cessna 208 Caravan#Accidents) with an entry instead. --Finlayson (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes Notability requirements. Felicia (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But it fails to meet the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): Just another light aircraft accident, no more notable than a car or bus crash. These happen every day worldwide and are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In this case there is no indication this will result in any lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved; no changes to procedures, no Airworthiness Directives, no lasting effects of any other kind and no deaths of any people notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. The policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies.- Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this accident can be adequately covered in the article on the airline. Unless a wikinotable person is involved, an accident such as this is almost always going to be below the threshold of notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - If the article has not been fleshed out in the near future, it may be appropriate to merge it, but it seems to be notable and should be kept for now while there is clearly a significant interest in it. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airline crashes with 12 deaths most certainly do not "happen every day worldwide". This was the fourth-deadliest air crash of 2017. Too soon to determine lasting effects on the industry. WP:RAPID. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID does not say that all newly-created articles should be kept. It suggests alternatives such as moving the page to draftspace, which may be more appropriate here until evidence of lasting notability is established. Alternatively the content could be merged into Nature Air for the time being. Either are acceptable outcomes under WP:RAPID for a light aircraft accident, which is typically regarded as WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A crash resulting in loss of 12 lives is tragic, but like many car or bus accidents with similar loss of life, tragedy doesn't bestow encyclopedic notability on its own. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as WWGB mentions above this incident was one of the top five deadliest incidents of 2017. Also one of the victims who perished in the crash was related to former Costa Riccan president Laura Chinchilla. The WP:NOTNEWS argument is not appropriate now as with the incident only being hours old it is natural that most of the coverage will be news related. There is plenty of coverage that has not yet been included in the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be nominated for deletion again if it failed WP:LASTING after few months or years. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep at this moment~~ given the coverage, it will take few months to decide whether it failed WP:LASTING. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After re-examining this subject, I am supporting merge to Nature Air and also the below comment of Shelbystripes. If it turns out that the subject passed WP:LASTING, we can have a separate article again. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Light aircraft accidents are not inherently notable. Wikipedia does not exist to create articles now and wait to see if notability exists later, that flips the notability standard on its head. The page barely exists anyway, so there's little harm from deletion; if it turns out notability is WP:LASTING, page could easily be re-created later once notability is established. Deletion is important to avoid setting a bad precedent for future non-notable incidents. Shelbystripes (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps snowball, at the least, merge.Antonio Super Uber Sexy Martin (wassap?) 16:54, 2 January, 2018 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Non-notable small plane accident. Acebulf (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a fatal crash of a commercial aircraft. I fully understand not wanting to write articles for every single private/military aircraft crash, but commercial crashes happen infrequently enough to warrant their own articles. Dannythewikiman (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not correct. There have been 206 accidents on this one aircraft type involving 427 fatalities and almost all have been commercial flights. It is a common occurrence, just like car accidents are. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Commercial aircraft" in this context means one with 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) MTOW or higher, which the Caravan does not have. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see now anything matching the criteria listed by The Bushranger above. Wykx (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't have a guideline qualifying the fourth deadliest crash in a given year; the fact a relatively small number died makes this stat a bit misleading. What we have here is a failed attempt to make a news story an encyclopedic entry without any knowledge of in-depth analysis, persistence, or lasting significance. Editors will, inevitably, fall back to their master key: WP:RAPID; however, RAPID works both ways and drawing it in a discussion does not put an automatic postponement on notability. Supposedly this may become notable in the future; that is when you create the article, not before.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the "We must have an article for every bump and scratch" crowd will finally get the picture! WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL--Petebutt (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, no evidence of significant coverage as required by GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A charter plane carrying tourists with more than 10 people, all of them were killed. One of them was the cousin of Costa Rica's former president Laura Chinchilla. It is the deadliest plane crash in Costa Rica in decades and it currently stands as the second deadliest in a country where aviation accident is pretty rare. That is not common, in contrast with year 2017 as the safest year in aviation history. Media widely reported this, especially the Spanish. Take some time okay? And we'll see more improvements. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: you should not make page moves in middle of AFD. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, notability is not inherited. The cousin of a former president is not a notable person. Fatal accidents involving light aircraft are very common globally. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: Yes light aircraft crashes are common "globally". I do realize that this is also a chartered private flight, but as per my arguments above (safest year yet this stands as the second deadliest in a country where aviation accident is rare, based on ASN, flighglobal and news websites), I think it deserves a stand alone article. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2017 was a safe year for jet airline aircraft flying, not light aircraft flying. You are convoluting the two. In my country (Canada) we have fatal light aircraft accidents on average almost every week. In the US, where they have more population and more aircraft, they have fatal light plane accidents on average every day. In a country like Costa Rica, where they have few light aircraft, it happens less often. Antarctica has few light aircraft and few accidents as a result too, but that doesn't mean that every light aircraft crash in Costa Rica is notable. It is quite possible that car accidents are not that common in Costa Rica, but we still don't have a Wikipedia article each one of on them. Why? Because they aren't notable. Most light aircraft accidents result in no changes, no lasting effects beyond the deaths involved, just as most car accidents don't. This accident, while tragic for the deaths involved, seems to be that same case, human error and no lasting effects. Our policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER exactly addresses why we don't have articles like this and it is a policy, not a guideline. It says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But for a country where aircraft accidents rarely occur, even light aircraft crashes, especially with the high number of fatalities, this is notable. Costa Rica rarely sees an event that causes significant number of fatalities. As this route is popular among tourists, this could have affected their tourism industry (U.S media have warned their readers about the dangers of private chartered flights). This accident highlights the danger of privately chartered passenger flights. In addition, most light aircraft crashes are "training flights". This isn't. It's a flight where the passengers pay for the flight. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"for a country"? Notability is equal for all countries. Though you have indicated that subject may pass WP:GNG, that's why I have voted for merge. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That approach actually would lead us into a situation where we would not have articles on light aircraft crashes in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc because they are commonplace there and not notable, but would have articles on light aircraft accidents in places like Costa Rica, Cuba, Andorra, Lichtenstein, the Vatican, etc, because they have few light aircraft and thus are less common there. User:Raymond3023 is right, notability has to be equal for all countries or it makes for some odd paradoxes across the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been moved by PaPa PaPaRoony from 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash to Nature Air Flight 9916. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it back until the discussion is completed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- Notable, for the reason it was the ONLY fatal crash in 2017 with paying customers among fatalities, tragically happened on the very last day of the year.83.249.48.72 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No it wasn't. You are confusing news reports. There were no fatalities among passenger jet aircraft airlines globally in 2017. There were many non-jet commercial passenger air carrier fatalities, though. The Cessna 208 is not a jet, it is a turboprop. This was just one of the non-jet commercial aircraft fatal crashes. See this article, which explains the stats. Also you can note that writing KEEP in all caps doesn't give it more weight in the final determination at the end of this AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:AIRCRASH should not be cited here Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles. What I see is this article meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Given its high death toll, my best guess is there must be some long lasting effects: negative perception of local tourism, operation suspension of the company, mourns in the communities, new regulations, etc. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 14:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY. Also many "only an essay"s reflect well-established WP:CONSENSUS, which this does, and if an accident is not suitable for inclusion in a type or airline article it fails WP:COMMONSENSE to believe it is suitable for a standalone. As for "there must be some long lasting effects": WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of the aircraft is at least as important as the size. Here, we have a commercial air accident with what i these days a large loss of life. We also have evidence it is a very major disaster by local standards and a government inquiry. For an article created this soon after the event, well, we aren't going to get a better claim to notability. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If there has been continued coverage it will meet WP:LASTING but right now there is no guarantee that it will meet it. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read my comment and/or WP:MEMORIAL. At least one of them does not say what you think it says. I can only guess you're trying to divorce my loss of life comment from its context, in order to pretend I'm saying death in particular numbers is of automatic notability? If so, you're fielding a strawman. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Continuing the discussion above. I know WP:ONLYESSAY, but the essay WP:AIRCRASH says "Don't cite me" itself. If you accept its argument, don't cite it. If you do't accept its argument, don't cite it. It's not helpful to cite WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE here either. If I were voting, I would vote for Keep and just say my common sense is this article is notable. Though I do feel so. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just read on WP:AIRCRASH "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting". But we late now and it has been cited often. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been significantly expanded since it as proposed for deletion (does WP:HEY apply?) and there is far more coverage of the event now that is both more numerous and more indebth. Also Costa Rican officials raided the offices of the airline company. This is an exceedingly rare turn of events that does not happen often after an aviation accident or incident. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reports are still dating to 31 December - 1 January. It might be doing good and there might be chances that it will meet the policies we have mentioned. Right now Nature Air is still too small, maybe a section can be provided if the outcome is to merge. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHas reliable sources and significant coverage. Bingobro (Chat) 05:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes it has the reliable sources, but the coverage is not significant; a whole bunch of news websites carrying the same story and then moving on to the next thing does not add up to significant coverage - that's just the news media version of "keeping up with the Joneses". We can give the crash a good treatment at the Nature Air article and have one previously badly-written article in need of a cleanup that has become half-decent, instead of two smaller badly-written articles in need of a cleanup. The information is not lost and there will be a redirect for the few people who will be looking for information about this light aircraft crash in the future to find it. Otherwise, this is just one more example of this supposed encyclopaedia's gradual transformation into a news aggregator. YSSYguy (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but list in related articles - as the article says a "privately chartered tourist passenger flight" makes it not noteworthy, if it had been a scheduled passenger flight I would have gone for a keep. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, shouldn't we be focused on secondary press coverage and not the type of flight? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is only one factor we have a shed full of precedent about what accidents are noteworthy for a stand-alone article, you have to remember that aircraft crashes are fairly regularly so they have pass a threshold, did they kill somebody important, did they hit something important, did it change the rules regarding aviation operation or maintenance, you also get civil and military (military accidents are far more common and less likely to be noteworthy) and the size of the aircraft, when you get down to what in the air transport world is a small aircraft then being scheduled or a private flight makes a difference. Cant see the relevance of press coverage, they all report the same news feeds to fill up space, coverage is probably the same as a bus crash which are rarely of note. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP THE PRESSES - KEEP Nature Air's AOC has BEEN SUSPENDED. This means that the accident is now notable enough to sustain an article per established consensus. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best an entry in Nature Air's accidents and incidents section despite the AOC suspension--Petebutt (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peruvian Airlines Flight 112 Boeing 737 Landing gear collapse & aircraft caught fire injured 39 passengers the article is kept. A light transport aircraft with 12 people killed is up for deletion? I am sorry but this seems unfear in my eyes but it all on points of view. I vote keep for some of the same reasons at stated above. One fatel crash that could lead to probable cause & to any safety recommendations involving the airline or aircraft type. Two its the second deadlist accident in the country. Three 2017 was safest for Commercial aviation history making accidents like this even more rare. Four with that note it seems that light aircraft crashes with lots of people killed are going to be more common place as a wiki article jutst look at this year with 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash, 2017 Sydney Seaplanes crash, Swan Aviation Sikorsky S-76 crash. Unless we get accident like that of Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 or West Wind Aviation Flight 280 fatal crashes like Nature Air are still going to happen unless changes are made to safety with aircraft of this size then Commercial aircraft. Making this accident with 12 killed on a aircraft which can seat 13 passengers & 2 pilots more notable to me. So I vote Keep. Cloverfield2Y (talk) 00.12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfD is not based on "fairness" or on other articles existing (or not). While this does now appear notable, please argue such based on policy, not "fairness". (Also see above re: how accidents with 737-size aircraft are by consensus held to a different standard than lightplane accidents such as Caravans.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Article states "The crash highlighted the danger of privately chartered tourist passenger flights...". Where is it established that privately chartered tourist passenger flights are dangerous? Statistically it still holds true that the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport. Nature Air appears to have a good safety record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.131.122 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.132.131.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Mjroot's link which I guess shows lasting significance. I also find myself agreeing with PaPa PaPaRoony's arguments in spite of the various rebuttals. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is still much to happen for showing lasting significance. Merging to Nature Air is still appropriate since it is still mostly about Nature Air. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews from New York City

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

Still fails WP:LISTN despite being a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD. Most of the items in the list do not have sources indicating that they are members, and we already have an article named Jews in New York City. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is why we have a category system, folks. Never can hope to be complete and just as poorly cited as version one was. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally thousands of Jewish people linked to New York City. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article recognizes the accomplishments of over 275 people. It is encyclopedic and meets the guidelines for Wikipedia. (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 275 people, NINE sources in the article. I'm tired of 'keep it because they're famous' articles with a paucity of sources here. Improve or don't bother with these articles. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Corky 23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hart (basketball)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only some WP:ROUTINE coverage and local mentions. Also WP:TOOSOON for WP:NHOOPS as he is currently with a fairly low level league and is in his first pro year, would likely get more coverage in one of the European leagues. It seems his most significant depth of coverage article is this one from The Buffalo News, however, he was only covered in that paper because he was once a high school athlete there and seems to fail the intent of WP:NHSPHSATH (local coverage of a high school player/former player and signings/transfers/trades are also commonly considered routine). Yosemiter (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing coverage to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Welinder

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

None of the sources seems to be independent, and only one of them has more than two sentences about her. She doesn't seem to meet any relevant notability guidelines. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, the sources don't even verify the content, not that any of them are reliable independent sources anyway. This is obviously an advitorial. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates her work is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nikolai Volkov

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

While tragic, this is simply coverage of a murder. As per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps one could recreate a page about the person, Nikolai Volkov, but I am not sure if he is sufficiently notable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pages seems a news report/cover. Suggest delete as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Fortune

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

Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet the notability standards for MMA fighters or sportspeople. He never competed at the highest level of his sport--only at junior or university competitions. Not sure how he was an 8 time high school American (an undocumented claim) while winning only 2 state high school championships.Sandals1 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Does not meet WP:NMMA.PRehse (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Blackpool

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

Following the demolition of Walter Robinson Court, Elizabeth Court and Churchill Court, this list article is reduced to effectively comprise three entries: the Blackpool Tower and two theme park rides. Given that there are no plans to build any structures of significant height in Blackpool beyond this, I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not notable for these reasons. Beeperbeeper5 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There's only really one tall structure in Blackpool, regardless of how many rollercoasters and rides they build. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should not be deleted because, at a minimum it can be merged/redirected to a larger area list of tallest buildings. It is quite normal to have/keep lists of tallest buildings. Also, it doesn't terribly matter that two buildings are gone; they can still be described as former structures, and I don't know that 5 or 3 items is too few to have a list about, anyhow. Having list-articles is good for limiting rampant coverage of individual buildings in separate articels. We don't want to force creation of separate articles in lieu of having buildings covered as individual items in a list. Please get it together and figure where you want this material merged to, if you really hate this list-article. Then whether it should be merged or not is a function of how long that other list is, perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just one of many similar lists in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom. One option would be to merge the Blackpool list with the List of tallest buildings and structures in Preston and perhaps other lists to create List of tallest buildings and structures in Lancashire (currently a redlink), which could then have one section for Blackpool and one section for Preston, with no net gain in any quest to remove information from Wikipedia. I fail to see why the Blackpool information should be simply deleted. I fail to see why merger should be necessary, though I don't terribly oppose it. I'll "vote" Keep for now, would update my vote if someone does some work.

By the way, if Walter Robinson Court has in fact been demolished, then someone should update List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement which maybe now should drop it, and perhaps update List of tallest destroyed buildings and structures in the United Kingdom which maybe now should add it. --Doncram (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really is very little to be gained in this article. The Blackpool Tower already is mentioned in the tallest UK structures list, and the two rides at Blackpool Pleasure Beach are already referred to within that article. The three demolished structures are not notable, almost every town and city has or had high rise apartment blocks, and the Blackpool ones were comparatively short. Anonymoussmith (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Anonymoussmith. Aside from its eponymous tower, Blackpool does not have a significant or notable association with high-rise buildings and structures, and this is demonstrated by the small number of entries on this list (which are all presently covered in other articles on high-rise structures in the UK). Eloquai (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

the page has been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9019:1800:10D0:DD3E:13BF:F851 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Wilkhahn. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ON chair

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

Question the notability of this article on a specific design of chair. Sources are a single mention in what appears to be a trade publication. Dolescum (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no claim to notability. It's literally just a chair. PriceDL (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a notable product, no sales claimed. The maker's page has info on this anyway so probably OK to redirect to Wilkhahn in this case as plausible search term. Mattg82 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari

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

I think that the subject of the article does not have any notibility by its own. If we look at the article's soureces we can see it quite clearly that either the sources are primary or related to her undirectly and also the article violate wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. Thats why I think the article should be deleted Ominictionary (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2018 (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/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a ce that included improving neutral tone and reducing puffery. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the media think it worthy of publication that a member of a famous family is giving out cheques, it is our standard that we don't need to ask why they thought their readers wanted to read that. It is sufficient to observe the media's interest in the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article reads more like a WP:PROPAGANDA violation, as it stands right now, and there is scant reference that attests to this person's notability. Also, notability is not inherited. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is strange that the creator of the page Aseefa Bhutto Zardari found it proper to nominate this instant article for deletion. You seek to delete the page of the elder sister whilst creating the page for the younger sibling having similar claim to fame. DebashisM^Talk 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DebashisM, there is a announcement from Asif Zardari that Aseefa Bhutto Zardari will stand 2018 election. She has been a Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication and both are international organization. But Bakhtawar has only work for that which completely belong to her family. Also there is no news of her holding any public office. Also important to mention my created article is completely based on secondary sources unlike this one. So, I think both are not similar claim of fame. Ominictionary (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The article is a violation of wikipedia's WP:Copy-paste, WP:PROPAGANDA and WP:POV policy. The article have majorly copy pasted from the official biography of Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari. Check this link: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCDE22 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep I see enough reliable references for a full article. --RAN (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment:- The article violate WP:PRIMARY SOURCE so its WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:COPYPASTE policy extencively. The article has been copy pasted from her own biography. If one look properly, they can see it clearly that the article's most of the reference are primary.

ref 1: article written by her mother about her (Benazir) own story. (primary source)
ref 2: News of the birth of Prime Minster's elder daughter not for her own. (indirect mention)
ref 3: Birth of her sister which hardly mentioned her. (indirect mention)
ref 4: For her own work
ref 5: Website of PPP, which is going to glorify anything done by Bhutto. (primary source)
ref 6: News analysis (primary source)
ref 7: Website of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology founded by her mother. (primary source)
ref 8: Her own twitter account (primary source)
ref 9: Because of her own
ref 10: A website had ran during PPP goverment, when her father was president. (primary source)

After seeing all this we can say that the article violate wikipedia's many policy and this is nothing except a propaganda, so I think there is no reason to keep it at all. Ominictionary (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is often in the news but there is no in-depth coverage on her. She is not a elected politician so she also fails WP:POLITICIAN. She doesn't have a notable career either. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable philanthropist; notability is not inherited from notable parents. Sourcing is in passing, routine, and / or WP:SPIP as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Nothing suggests individual notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. And per User:Rpclod, a little joke from my side as a Pakistani, "we have had enough of Morosi siasat(Inherited politics)" :). Lets keep it away from Wiki. M A A Z T A L K 12:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, but under the principles of WP:PRESERVE given this person could become notable, or at least a plausible search term, make sure to merge any content that's worth merging to Bhutto's article, and possibly keep a redirect to a "Personal life" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Störm (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing (TV series)

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES. Not yet released. The article was undeleted as a contested prod. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep [7], [8], [9], [10]. Appears to have sufficient coverage in mainstream media press to meet GNG, I don't see anything that says this has been cancelled. I'd suggest revisiting this if it doesn't show up on air in another six months, but if it does, what exactly is the point of deleting and recreating this? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a cast, synopsis and a proposed airdate, that's all we need. It would be a waste of resources to remove this article and then have to re-create it when the show comes to air. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your concern, it could (and should) be moved to draftspace. It could be improved and restored from there if the TV show actually materializes. That's my !vote, anyway, but Wikipedia does not keep articles merely because they might become notable later. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable now, and meets WP:TVSHOW. I wish people wouldn't waste AfD on cases like this – if a TV series has been greenlit to series by a TV network, and has a semi-definite premiere date, but has not yet premiered, it should not be AfD'ed. Please save that for articles about TV pilots that were NOT greenlit to series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Also consider that ABC is likely to announce their midseason schedule on January 8 during winter press tour; almost forgot about that. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just like what I thought, ABC did announce a premiere date; April 2. So I'd say all of the nom's concerns are now addressed. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the recent announcement and media coverage (re: Entertainment Weekly, Jan. 8) clearly passes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show is a known commodity, people will want to find information about it. Makes no sense to remove this or send it to draftspace. Other unreleased TV shows have 'upcoming show' pages, the original post that started should not be taken seriously (seems more likely to be based on some bias against the show or network). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.127.164 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maharana Pratap. Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajabde

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

WP:INVALIDBIO, specifies that a relative of a popular person is not notable, unless it has sufficient content(which is sourced, when talking about historical articles). The same applies to this article, as Ajabde was a wife of Pratap Singh I, and not notable herself. The article also relies on only one source, whose reliability itself is disputed. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect - I agree, I, too, don't find enough sources that suggest the individual could be the subject of a NPOV, NOR, V article. A redirect from Ajadbe to Maharana Pratap is possible, but it isn't clear to me that Ajadbe is a Mononymous person. I would suggest such a redirect should be from Maharani Ajabde (which currently redirects to this page) and Ajadbe simply be deleted. Note that Maharani Ajabde Punwar already does redirect to Maharana Pratap. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to redirect per Peterkingiron and since while Ajadbe may not be mononymous, there aren't any other notable Ajadbe's that I find. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to find much else about her beyond the pocket book (which does not seem RSey) and her portrayal in a TV serial.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband. The form [[Maharani Ajabde] would only be desirable if Maharani was need to disambiguate, since it is a title. Like many wives she does not appear to be separately notable. In such cases where any notability is inherited, we norn ally redirect to the associatred person who is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maharana Pratap. That would be fine, considering the article itself is non notable. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First World (film)

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

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG; devoid of any mention in reliable sources whatsoever. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries. Ravenswing 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Networks

AfDs for this article:

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

Though the article was kept at a 2010 AfD, this was based on one article in The Express (which I've added), a press release and an 'article' on an independent financila advisor company website. I can't imagine that would take it past today's WP:NCORP notability threshold. I can find nothing else of substance online about the company, other than press releases, the usual company directory profiles and the occasional blog. The company claims to be a pioneer but I can't see any independent proof. This company is operating in the digital age so I'd expect to be able to find coverage if it existed. All this, combined with the continual attempts by IPs to re-write it advertorially, had led me to think it's better the article is deleted. fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yuppp. That express article is mostly quotes from the company. Not independent. Fails NORG and WP:NOTPROMO too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Only run of the mill press realeases. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Pamma Ram Mela

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

Notability per WP:NEVENT uncertain for me. Was going to A7, but good coverage is found in those sources. Appears to be an insignificant local event, but if it were anything else it would pass WP:GNG probably. The page creator has not done a good job of explaining its significance. Bringing here for discussion and community consideration. !dave 13:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5, see Vijaysuthar008877. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SIP Express Router. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSIPS

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

Chiefly a list of indiscriminate items which has no value for the general people and only interests a group of hardcore fans. As such, the whole page is not encyclopedic. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ~~Note: This cannot qualify for soft deletion as it has been prod/deproded. It can be closed as no consensus if no further comments after 7 more days.~~
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any notability in the sourcing. Also, fwiw, PROD removal does not exempt an article from soft deletion via an AfD per the policy: administrators may soft delete at their discretion per WP:SOFTDELETE, even if it has been deproded. This discretion might be to not delete ~~this time because the deprod was so recent~~, but it would not be outside the policy to soft delete. Hopefully it won't come to that, though. Edit: actually, I think soft deletion would be good here if we don't have more participants. The actual contested PROD was in 2013, not recently, and a how-to guide is not really the type of sourcing we look for. Soft deletion (assuming we don't get more participation) would work because the deprod had been years ago, and a lack of a quorum now after multiple relists would show that over time, the deletion had become non-controversial. Anyway, that is assuming we don't get more comments, which like I said, hopefully we will. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I don't know where I got that idea in my mind. Thanks for the ping and letting me know. I was checking histories and not using soft deletion, ha. I appreciate it. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes sense to do it the way you were :). I’d agree that it typically would be a reason to NC close if it were recent, but policy allows a closing admin discretion in these cases. I think an example of where I would soft delete would be a no reference stub from 2005 that was de-proded in 2006 by an IP with no comment and had been relisted twice with no comments: it would be ineligible for PROD because of the 2006 contesting, but if no one in the community objected to its deletion after 3 weeks, it’d make little sense to NC and renom. This isn’t quite at that extreme, but relisted twice with one Delete !vote based on the sourcing and a contested PROD from 5 years ago would in my opinion, be fine to soft delete. Again, hopefully this becomes all academic, but I just didn’t want there to be a NC if there didn’t have to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), who added the first prod.
Pinging Mark viking (talk · contribs), who wrote on the talk page:
I am going to deprod this article as the second reference, Building Telephony Systems with OpenSIPS 1.6 is an entire book on the subject--a substantial peer reviewed publication by a respected computer book publisher. This is good evidence of notability. A quick look at GScholar shows a number of papers discussing openSIPs. Thus the assertion of lack of notability is not uncontroversial. --Mark viking (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Pinging Pavlor (talk · contribs), who removed the second prod on 1 January 2018 with the note "Procedural deprod - Prod/Deprod already in August 2013, deprod reason on the article talkpage".
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Book mentioned above was published by Packt, which is a print on demand publishing company - they will probably publish anything you throw at them. Hard to judge notability then. I was not able to find better sources myself. Pavlor (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SIP Express Router. There are few enough editors in the telecoms space these days that lack of participation does not imply lack of controversy. Warnock's dilemma applies. 4 1/2 years after my deprod above, Packt's reputation isn't what it used to be. The book itself got a second edition in 2016, which wouldn't happen if it was hit-and-run dross. But Pavlor makes a good point--Packt branding doesn't have the reputation of a first-tier publisher. OpenSIPs itself has a yearly conference devoted to it and is mentioned in about 450 GScholar entries. This paper claims (as of 2011) that OpenSIPS was the most popular open source SIP server. Altogether its not enough evidence for stand-alone notability. But the software is worth a mention in the SIP Express Router article. This article covers SER, and further developments OpenSER and Kamailio. OpenSIPS is another further development of OpenSER, so has a natural place in the article. I'd just merge the couple of sentences in the lede of this article as due weight. --Mark viking (talk)

"Lack of controversy?" With all due respect, what are you talking about? The huge table that consistitutes 96.7% of the article (45,052 bytes from the 46,542 bytes total) is a direct violation of WP:NOTDIR, a fundamental policy.

The remaining 3.7% probably does better in Session Initiation Protocol article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly prefer deletion (this is clearly not notable and there is nothing I can see worth merging), but I'd be fine with a redirect and let people merge as needed from history (and I suspect nothing will be needed, but that's up for a talk page discussion). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being more clear about the controversy assertion. I was referring to TonyBallioni's assertion above that lack of participation could mean less controversy. Regarding the table, there's no controversy there--it's of undue weight, out of place, and agreed, violates NOTDIR. Whatever is done with the article, the table has got to go :-) Redirecting or merging to Session Initiation Protocol would be fine by me, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lede sentences to

Session Initiation Protocol per above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I wrote in my PROD back in 2013 still applies now: there is no evidence that this subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article gives no independent sources at all (the author of the book referred to is one of the developers of OpenSIPS). Merging the bulk of the content of the article makes no sense, since, as Codename Lisa and Mark viking both say, almost all of it is a totally unsuitable table which does not belong in any article. As for merging the first couple of sentences to SIP Express Router, I agree with TonyBallioni that there is nothing worth merging. However, anyone who thinks that OpenSIPS is worth a brief mention there can easily write one or two short sentences telling the reader what OpenSIPS is, without having to refer to this article. AfDs that are closed as "merge" more often than not result in one of two outcomes: (1) nobody actually does the merge, or (2) it is merged, and then after a while when everyone from the AfD has moved on, someone reverts the redirecting, and restores the article. In either of these cases there was consensus (sometimes unanimous consensus) that the article should not remain, but it does remain. Obviously in the case of an article with significant content worth merging that is just a risk we have to accept, but where there is no significant content to merge, as in this case, it is much better to delete the article and, as I have indicated, anyone can then add a brief mention to the other article if they wish to. That is why I strongly prefer delete to merge for this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, WP is not a tech manual or directory listing ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to SIP Express Router. According to the OpenSIPS github page, OpenSIPS is a fork of SER. It might make sense to mention the fork there. But, for sure, don't include the whole list of modules. One or two sentences should be sufficient, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google search indicates there is a strong technical support infrastructure behind this implementation. The organization also holds annual conferences to support the product. Better sourcing would be nice, but this is a back office product, and not sexy. A merge wouldn't work because the SIP article only points to a list of different vendor implementations, and SIP Express Router is a fork. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As Women's football in Liechtenstein. Sandstein 12:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein women's national football team

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

The article clearly states there's no team and hardly any plans to create one. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't exist. Giant Snowman 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't exist, not enough meaningful content to merge to Football in Liechtenstein. PriceDL (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article states, the national federation is working to develop a team, and the current article is the best holding spot for the four different youth women's national teams who have played friendlies, international tournaments or are scheduled to play. "not enough meaningful content" is not a valid reason to delete. That is an issue of "article needs improvement and to be expanded." If "not enough meaningful content" a reason people want to have for deletion, this rational should be put forward in a en.wp wide RfC given this would pretty much result in the removal of almost all stubs. --LauraHale (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @LauraHale: I said delete because it's not notable because it doesn't exist, not because it doesn't include enough meaningful content. The lack of content is why I'm not suggesting it not be merged to Football in Liechtenstein, which is probably the most sensible place for information on attempts to develop a women's team to exist. PriceDL (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect - the simple fact is that this team doesn't exist, no senior women's international team from Liechtenstein has ever played any sort of formal match, they are now mentioned at Football in Liechtenstein, so a redirect there would probably seem best as a plausible search term. However:

No reason why junior teams shouldn't have their own article, especially those that have played competitive matches, so not sure why this is being used as a holding pen. I think at this stage the U-16 team is the same as the U-17 team given when they both competed, but I see no reason not to have Liechtenstein women's national under-17 football team and Liechtenstein women's national under-19 football team, as viable standalone articles.
The Background and Development section should be moved to Football in Liechtenstein as well sourced prose, but nonetheless prose that is more closely related to the women's game in Liechtenstein as a sport rather than the national team specifically. I will look to do this shortly. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved relevant sourced prose to Football in Liechtenstein where I think it is more relevant and where it is appropriate that content discussing a team which does not exist should be held. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Liechtenstein#Women's national football team, per Fenix down. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Women's football in Liechtenstein (or similar) There's enough information and interest for there to be an article on just women's football. I agree that the name of the article is a problem, but that's easily fixed by renaming. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Mega.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: @Megalibrarygirl:, do we really need to split Football in Liechtenstein at this point in time? Not really sure there is sufficient content in that article to warrant one article on men's football and one article on women's football. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough content to justify it's own article without bloating the other but doesn't really matter that much. Why not? We're not paper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not really how things are done. There are only a couple of articles specifically on women's football in individual countries, the sport is normally documented without the need to split by gender. Here we seem to want to split a four paragraph article into a couple of two paragraph articles. Not saying that there won't be a need in the future, but just don't see the need here now. More importantly, such a split actually serves to make it more difficult for readers to find out about women's football in Liechtenstein. As Template:Football in Europe templates shows, the conventional heading is simply "Football in ...". Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one editor I know who was heavily into Russian topics and a curious interest in Bhutan and that was Russavia. It's highly unusual for an editor to have a major interest in both. Just saying. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, I suppose the redirect from the original title should be deleted. The very fact that Liechtenstein is on the list of women's national association football teams seems misleading. It also seems the whole list should be revised. Turkmenistan is the first link I clicked on... WikiArticleEditor (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp with new name. As long as there is no widely accepted national team, the article should be presented in more general terms. It certainly contains a lot of useful information and is well sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Megalibrarygirl, as there is apparently no recognized national team. The topic of Women's football in lichtenstein certainly seems notable, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/merge per recommendation of Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Women's football in Liechtenstein, per similar articles for other European countries. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Is Mind

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

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. While the article appears to have sources, anything beyond a superficial examination reveals a raft of press releases, namedrops, screening announcements, statements unsupported by the sources and other trivial mentions that fail to meet the GNG. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries, is repeatedly reverting copyvios and removing the AfD template from the article, and has received a block for doing so; WP:COI's plainly in play. Ravenswing 12:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are primary or just WP:PROMO. No evidence of notability from reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has been reviewed and quoted in numerous media outlets and was theatrically released. It also meets the general notability guidelines "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." ._{Omicron4 (TALK)} —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As Omicron4 (the SPA creating the article) knows, the notability standards for films are quite a bit more stringent than "was theatrically released" or "been reviewed" (although he's yet to cite the reviews from the "numerous media outlets" alleged to exist). In fact, the criterion dealing with both holds that in order to be considered notable: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The latter doesn't exist, and no evidence of the former has hit reliable sources save for a smattering of one-off screenings at SF conventions and college lectures. Ravenswing 22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ravenswing's obsession and bias in getting this page deleted is obvious. If this editor bothered to look at the sources cited in the article or even bothered to do a simple Google search Ravenswing would see the numerous articles and reviews about this film. And for Ravenswing's edification the film was theatrically released. Again Ravenswing's use of the word "smattering" shows clear bias against this film. This is an editor who couldn't even interpret how Box Office Mojo reports box office receipts. Ravenswing insisted there was only one screening when in fact there was fourteen. But as Ravenswing was proven wrong now thinks the word smattering is appropriate. What is Ravenswing's obsession with this film? Just because an editor doesn't like a film doesn't mean the article should be deleted. _{Omicron4 (TALK)} —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ZXCVBNM. Just because a film has been released doesn't make it notable. Especially with only $14K in ticket sales. Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Farrel

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

Article currently is a CV cited to primary sources (largely added by the subject himself). There's no evidence at all that any of his books have received significant secondary attention (the most recent three are self-published). Whether or not he'd been elected to a position in a minor UK political party, he'll need to have had significant coverage in reliable seondary sources to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of any compelling claims of notability, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I created article because the guy has headed many IETF groups and written RFCs. Furthermore, according to Amazon he has authored multiple computer science books. However, for me his non-computer science books were never a criteria of his notability. I do not care if the article is deleted or kept. --- A. L. M. 17:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 books written, 25 citations, The previous notice mentions "This article needs attention from an expert in Biography/Science and academia" so unless those proposing deletion are just that - I don't see how the deletion can be proposed. I see nothing to suggest those proposing the deletion have the necessary qualifications. Drowz0r (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what expertise, Wikipedia policy or guidance are you using to support your 'keep'? Sionk (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given our expertise seem roughly the same, my keep and your proposed delete seem equally valid. So it is either worth something and we cancel one another out... or neither of us have the necessary expertise and our views are worth equally zero (looking at your profile my qualifications are likely the same as your own, without going into too much detail on your/my degrees etc). Drowz0r (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't particularly agree with the justification provided for the nomination, but I'm not sure I can argue against what is likely to be the outcome. Personally, I think Wikipedia is too keen on just removing BLP articles because a high bar for notability is required. On the other hand, the subject of this nominations has works that are rightfully cited sources for other articles on Wikipedia, and I'd also suggest (but don't know), that the subject is sufficiently notable in his main area of activity. I certainly feel like the nominator should have at least consulted with the Science and Academia workgroup first. Does this project even know the article has been nominated for deletion? Have they actually even been informed the article was in need of attention? Also, Wikipedia's guidelines make little account for semi-academic engineering professions, especially in computing (with the exception of mentioning an IEEE fellowship as a sign of notability), as the specific criteria don't often apply to these disciplines, so that could use improvement. Either way, I think it's a bit disappointing the amount of busybodying this article has received by WP:POLUK.--Topperfalkon (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topperfalkon (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find coverage in a reliable independent source. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With top citation count on Google scholar over 1000 and a couple other publications over 100 he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 (but only just, as it's a high-citation field). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Hakeem

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

Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In 2018, the player will play in S.League, it should pass WP:NFOOTY. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot preduict the future and so should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not satisfying WP:NSOCCER--Safe My Edit (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layzie Bone discography

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

Seems superfluous, as Layzie Bone has a full discography (with links to all albums). Suggest re-conversion to redirect. - Not well versed in music/discography article conventions, so feel free to tell me otherwise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not superfluous as has much more detail than the list of albums in the artist article. Given the sizes of the two articles, however, a merge would likely be in order. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one charting album, separate disco pages usually only get created to display chart information but there is not much to display here. Mattg82 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve - The nominator is correct that the article doesn't do much but repeat a list that is already in the artist's article, but since the artist is notable I suggest that his discography be expanded with the types of supporting info seen in other discog articles. A "cleanup-reorganize" tag could be added to the top. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve He's part of one of the most successful rap groups in history. I think it needs to be cleaned up and improved. A deletion would be pointless as he is extremely notable. Dam!ta (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Evening

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

Non-notable talk show lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the most well-known talk-show in Armenia. Furthermore, it is hosted by two of the prominent musicians in Armenia. Literally everyone in Armenia talks about the show after the new episode airs. Harut111 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harut111: If what you're saying is true there should be a lot of coverage of the show in Armenian secondary sources. Are you able to produce some news sources/reviews from Armenian reliable sources talking about the show? I'd look for them myself, but I know zero Armenian. Brustopher (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: Sure. Here are some. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] If the hosts are Aram and Garik (the most famous ones in Armenia), it simply cannot but have many sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Harut111 and the sources provided above. Brustopher (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we going to finish the discussion? It has been more that 10 days... Harut111 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not contested, I guess. Sandstein 21:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkTanks

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

Absolutely no coverage. Coin945 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coverage from EuroGamer among others. However, I'm not sure if this is the same game, due to it having different release dates. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - disqualified from WP:NVIDEOGAMES--Safe My Edit (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Flawed arguments on the keep side QEDK and Eloquai, please read WP:INHERITED) but no one has specifically rebutted Thinker78's sources (or the last-minute additions from CASSIOPEIA) which seem to be robust enough to support a BLP. A Train^talk 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Riley

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

A man with a job. Unreliable. Article seems to be a result of COI, sockpuppetry, subsequent removal/redirecting and subsequent restoring. The Banner talk 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD is appropriate for this. We've played this cat and mouse game many times before with determined COI/SPAs. It's been up for discussion before. The same person(s) (as per behaviour) regularly try to revert the decisions formed by consensus by established editors - often with sticking in a cheeky dig too, perhaps out of spite or perhaps out of deception by distraction (e.g. in this instance the editor who'd never used this site before said 'removed sockpuppet edit'). I've just undone their edits as there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (other than that associated with the company's take-over) of the subject and this is just another attempt to circumvent. Rayman60 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but deserves the community to suffer from this? Why not protecting, salting or what ever other trick that is possible? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the time is there, and the decision is to delete it might be a good idea to salt this article to avoid the sockpuppetry, cat-and-mouse and other games played in the past. The Banner talk 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GNG, topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject^[1]^[2]^[3], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable CEO. Coverage is in passing, relating to the company and / or WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a CV-hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. And, per WP:SPIP, in my opinion, " people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter" (see the references I included in my comment above). Also, per WP:ATD, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Coverage does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. Remember that decisions are taken by consensus so other comments should be read and comment on as well if they are against your opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep CEO of a very notable company. Obvious keep is obvious. Riley has been included in honarary lists and help important positions thereto. Reads neutral and I see no cause to delete. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, so the fact that he works for "a very notable company", as you state it, has no influence on his notability. The Banner talk 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes as much sense as saying the Pope doesn't gain notability for leading the Catholic Church. The subjectly is inherently notable for holding the most important position of a notable company and I'm just adding on to the preceding support, as evidenced. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has received coverage in a range of reputable news sources; admittedly not as much as other tech bosses but enough to take him over the line of notability in my opinion. I also agree with User:QEDK above - his role as a CEO might not be notable in itself, but as the CEO of a major technology company (which has recently become one of Apple's largest corporate acquisitions), his position is not inconsequential either. Eloquai (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets wP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Reliable source found here- [20], [21], [22], [23] and [24]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ansh 666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardic

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

I got nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could also not find anything - Shame. Looks like a fun game Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color Lines

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

I've searched...and come up with nada. Coin945 (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find nothing either: No reviews on GameRankings either. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Fauss

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

Does not meet notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro 2

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

No Mobygames reviews. That's a pretty good indication. Searched elsewhere and appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss (video game)

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

I'm getting bupkis. I'm convinced it exists, but the literature doesn't have much to say about it unfortunately. Coin945 (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – some reviews in print sources but fairly trivial. It's possible more exist that aren't findable online but I doubt enough to make it notable PriceDL (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rivet#Installation. Content is still visible in history if anyone wishes to merge or copy to draft (with attribution of course). ansh 666 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bucking bar

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

This article currently consists of an unsourced dictionary definition, and any additional future content could easily be included in Rivet or Rivet gun. The topic has no significance outside of its role in the riveting process. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It seems like this is dlthewave's payback for me mentioning that I felt Stephen Paddock should not be given an article. I posted comments about thinking it didn't seem right that a murderer like Stephen Paddock be considered notable and be given an article - now with an expanded personal life section - versus someone like Heather Meyer who was killed at the Charlottesville Rally back in August. The user has edited articles on both the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally and the Las Vegas Shooting article. I've expressed my opinion that victims should be notable because focusing on criminals gives the criminal more attention and incentives further violence. In regards to the Bucking Bar article which I created after being surprised there was no article on Wikipedia about it, I have discussed with someone in the past on Wikipedia who agreed that since there is likely an article for Hammer, which is a tool which could be made of many different things, there should be an article for a Bucking Bar. I actually didn't know if there was an article for Hammer but was pretty confident there was one. Indeed, there is a very nice article for Hammer. There are whole companies which sell Bucking Bars. I feel there should be a Bucking Bar article. Synesthetic (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... leaving aside the motivation here... there seems to be a lot to say about hammers, seeing as there are a gazillion types and they have been around since some Australopithecine got tired of bruising their knuckles. Is there much to say about bucking bars, beside the dicdef? "Piece of metal behind rivet" doesn't lend itself much to informative coverage in secondary sources... maybe etymology, but that's still within dicdef territory. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would move to draft pending potential expansion into something worth having in article space. With physical inventions, there is always something more than the etymology of the term. When was it first invented? Is there a specific person who came up with it, or did it merely come to be used in a certain time period without a specific inventor being identifiable? Has the invention been improved over time, and if so, in what ways? There's enough to say about it that this guy was able to make the video on this page. bd2412 T 17:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rivet#Installation as a {{R with possibilities}}. There isn't enough for a stand-alone article currently, and with its additional context, the article rivet does a better job of describing what a bucking bar actually is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of this subject is undetermined and from the above it seems as if all relevant information is already covered in other articles. EvilxFish (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rivet. We don't need an article on every component used in every process. There's more than enough information in rivet. When there gets too much there, we can bring the redirect out of retirement and give it a glorious page all of its own, fully described, referenced and duly polished. Until then... well. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rivet#Installation -- the number of possible different shapes may be vast, but they're all about putting an anvil in place to strike against. As the bar serves no other purpose than to be used in the installation of rivets, it is suitable to merge and redirect. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: LOL-- LOL-- LOL--, sorry! Strong keep as payback? That's a good one, and one of the better of rationale. I love Wikipedia. There is this little policy that apparently is not important, or over-looked (I hope the later), that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maybe significant coverage is not really required. We can "ignore the rules" because it will help Wikipedia somehow, or mothball the 29 words as a redirect until such time as we have enough for a full-blown article. The "I'm pissed at you so keep" expended more words in the first line and there are five more lines. On a more serious note Rivet gun would be the more suited place for coverage but with only 29 words and such passion I think we could just blank-and-redirect. Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay so there is an article for anvil already which a bucking bar appears to be a type of. I would still think bucking bar deserves a page. Think about all of the things in your life which are riveted. Bucking bars helped create them. Synesthetic (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind if there could be a stand-alone article having been an automotive technician and paint and body man for over 30 years. I have used a pneumatic rivet gun, that will not work without a bucking bar set, that actually is like a mobile anvil and similar to a dolly used in bodywork. Given some of the other options above I would prefer stand-alone considering there is Hammer (firearms), Trigger (firearms), and other like articles.

To some, the apparent "sourcing thing" might be deemed a thing of the past but at present, and no viable options offered, (there are no references), I have a hard time with other options. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JPL's BLP concerns appear to have been addressed. A Train^talk 12:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Keymer

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

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR and no reliable source coverage to support it. His roles so far appear to be minor ones, not "major" roles for the purposes of clearing NACTOR, because none of the ones that have Wikipedia articles list him in their cast lists at all, and several of them don't even appear in his IMDb credits either, and the article doesn't cite any references at all. As always, every actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he has an IMDb profile -- he needs to be the subject of media coverage for an article to become earned, but there's no evidence that Oskar Keymer has been. And his article on de: doesn't cite any references either, so we can't just salvage this by copying anything over from there. The only reason I'm not also listing the German article for deletion is that I don't speak or write German in order to navigate the process. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete Non notable child actor~~. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed after reading below sources L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly notable as lead actor in de:Hilfe, ich hab meine Lehrerin geschrumpft, with other leading roles in de:Conni & Co and its sequel. —Kusma (t·c) 11:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kusma, this is an unreferenced blp. Do you have multiple, independent sources to confirm notability? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this is currently a completely unreferenced BLP (so I'm not voting "keep"), but he does meet WP:NACTOR per his films (which unfortunately don't have articles in English). Possible sources: [25] (mentioning his date of birth), [26], [27]. (Just from a Google News search for his name). —Kusma (t·c) 21:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the only source listed in the article is IMDb, and IMDB is not a reliable source. The article fully and clearly violates our guidelines on biographies of living people, which states that all such articles must have reliable sources baking up what is stated in the article. So if an article has no reliable sources in it, it must be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anybody here ever follow WP:BEFORE? This AfD has been around for two weeks and yet only I can find sources off Google? These delete votes above are obviously un-researched. This is no longer unsourced. Trackinfo (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:NACTOR, and the sources Trackinfo added to the article plus those I mention above should be enough to prove this. —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not meeting WP:NACTOR, not finding significant independence coverage to determined huge following. May be WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes have failed to address the nominator's concern that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Buchanan

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

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. His "most notable role" is as a recurring supporting character, not as a main one, and his other listed roles are all one-off television appearances or minor characters in films -- and the only source present here is a post to his sister's Instagram account. As always, an actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he's had roles -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in real (not social) media about him and his performances in those roles before an article becomes appropriate, but there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He is a major cast member on a hit TV show on a major network. How much more does he need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.94.35 (talk • contribs)
Some actual reliable source coverage about him in real media, for starters. Notability always depends on that — nobody, but nobody, is ever notable enough for a Wikipedia article without that. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've seen articles about cast members of say Survivor, do nothing after and keep an article, while Teck Holmes cannot have one, despite having an accomplished career in entertainment, because he "only did MTV" as a castmember of Real World. Notability shouldn't be so subjective. Just my 2c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.94.35 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's done several other notable roles such as Fuller House and The Fosters. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. ─ 1997 kB 07:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 episodes in a series is not the stuff a significant role is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "3 episodes in a series" is disingenuous. 16 episodes of Designated Survivor, 6 of The Fosters, 5 of Game Shakers, a lead role in the upcoming Karate Kid series. Arguably, those are enough to cover WP:NACTOR. I've added some basic sources to the article but they may be short of meeting the GNG. All in all, undecided for now. Mortee (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vada O. Manager

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business executive. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by a banned sock Special:Contributions/Salmonthelovedog. Not notable for public career either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate any real world notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BLP & WP:BIO etc. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing even approaching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Roost

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. I found this and this, but it hardly supports notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is high time that every article sourced only to IMDb be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Poor sourcing in an article does not make a subject non-notable. His one-man stage shows have received quite a bit of coverage ([28], [29], [30], [31]) and his TV credits are easily verified. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. This is a BLP with zero references. Consensus has determined that IMDb is not a reliable source and "External links" are not references. As a reminder, this is a BLP and as such is held to a higher degree concerning references. Four links were provided above, #1, #2, #3 are about "Pope Head" and #4 about the "one-man play". Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability, so this is considered as being two references. The talk page shows the issues concerning a lack of were mentioned almost a year ago. and now there are two, and this is not enough to think about passing GNG. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability" - seriously? --Michig (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire) (3rd nomination)

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Jay

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

most of the claimed notability is not in my field, but I don';t see how any of it meets my standard. The Huffington Post does not have sufficient editorial control for a BLP, and the Inc item is a Inc Profile , which any privately owned business with an English language website can get for $30 a year.[32] . (I suspect we may have to check every article on a business using an Inc reference to remove the ones that are Inc Profiles.-- I did not realize how useless they wee until I read all the details on the linked page--by expanding the faqs at the bottom) DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of the subject. From a Factiva search, the only independent source mentioning her appears to be a Gold Coast Bulletin article (also published in Cairns Post) about a song written about her by a former X-Factor contestant. All other mentions on Google appear to be either trivial or non-reliable, or are self-published/republished press releases (see WP:BASIC). Only thing weighing in favour of keep is that she has a large fan base per WP:NMODEL but this is not a conclusive factor. Kb.au (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG . There is significant coverage of her modeling career, and her role in So You Think You Can Dance was documented in her IMBd page. Cannady212 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As John Pack Lambert pointed out, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDBREF), and a list of television appearances does not show notability regardless. Unsure what the significant coverage of her modelling career you're referring to is. Only independent source (that is, not self published or based on a press release) is an interview with her on blogging platform Medium. Kb.au (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WP:GNG is met. Significant coverage does not imply a significant number of sources, but whether a topic is addressed 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. In this case, there is significant coverage of the model on several media outlets. Plus she has a large fanbase per WP:NMODEL. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 13:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the keep votes show a total lack of understanding what is and what is not a reliable source. IMDb is absolutely not at all a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I do agree that IMDb is not at all a reliable source, I don't understand why Gold Coast Bulletin and Inc Magazine are considered unreliable? Neither are self-published nor press releases. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After ignoring social media, self publishing sites, promos, and primary, there is essentially nothing left of any significance that I can readily find. Fails WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(correction The Inc articles was not a link profile, as Litholdor pointed out to me on my talk p. I'd say it would be more accurately classed as a press release, or at best an advertorial. The give-away was the author, "By Wanda Thibodeaux, Copywriter, TakingDictation.com", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com." DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial on a nn individual, built on WP:SPIP sourcing. Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weighing in with the re-listing. This subjects only claim to notability is a social media following, which doesn’t count. Also feeble is the recognition she may have received by an appearance on a tv show competition. Re: the keep votes, I wonder to what the degree the editors critically looked at the content of the sources/google hits? They all are derived from the subject's own press release/promo/advertorial origin. Yes, sources such as Inc. Magazine and The Gold Coast Bulletin can contain reliable coverage independent of the subject, but not every bit of content therein meets that criteria. Non-paid repurposing of promotional material can (and in this case is) passed off as "real" coverage merely to serve as content to fill out a publication/website. In this regard, the argument of meeting GNG by “…significant coverage…on several media outlets…” misses the mark. In fact, I can't find any significant coverage on this subject at all. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Social-media C-lister of insufficent additional notability. SunChaser (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herois e vampiros

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

Article seems to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D3 (expo)

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

A one-time Expo in 2006. Coin945 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take Command (video game)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite appearances, this is actually a video game series! Take Command: 2nd has a lot of reviews, and is arguably notable on it's own, especially with the GameSpot Review. Does need some work to find those references though. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Advance: WormCam

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

No independent notability. Coin945 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIGN Reviewed the peripheral, as did Nintendo World Report. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly meets the notability guideline. There's at least a few really reliable sources per WP:VG/RS that are reliable (IGN: [33] and Nintendo World Report: [34]). The N-Sider article ([35]) is considered to be unreliable, but I imagine with an even slightly more thorough search than the one I did, you'll be able to find probably a little bit more. But even with just the two, I think this is definitely a keep !vote. Nomader (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club Kart

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsure if this is helpful, as arcade machines aren't my area, but Arcade-Museum, National Arcade Hire, and Arcade-Game-Sales have some info on the box. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

War in the Pacific (video game)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strategic wargames are not that widely popular or covered in media as shooter-like games but if you ask someone of the wargamer community about this game you'll get something like an epic monster wargame. AFAIR it's the only strategic wargame covering air/land/sea actions in the pacific 1941-45. --Denniss (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GameRankings list a Review by Computer Gaming World, as well as mentions on GameSpot, as well as a review here by Bovine Conspiracy. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mobygames also lists only the CGW and Bovine Conspiracy reviews, and Metacritic lists no reviews at all, which makes me suspect those two are the only reviews of the game out there from notable/reliable publications. I tried Goodsearch but came up with only primary sources, bulletin boards, and the occasional Youtube video. Denniss's rationale is little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and being known among the hardcore fanbase of the genre is not a mark of distinction; if I wanted to know more about a particular strategic wargame, I would certainly hope at least one member of the community would be able to tell me about it, however obscure it is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too obscure to meet WP:NGAME; the present review are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afterimage (shader effect)

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

Unsourced since 2007. Dicdef. Coin945 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls under WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think there's much to be said about the article subject beyond explaining what it is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 13:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Selangor state election

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

No notability and references angys (Talk Talk) 10:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article will be dated once the next Selangor election has taken place, and thus will constantly need modification. In addition, it does not have any references. Vorbee (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It's well established that articles on state elections in Malaysia are appropriate for Wikipedia (see contents of this template). Being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. Given the number of articles on state elections we have in the US or district elections in the UK, this nomination would appear to be a classic case of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. Number 5 7 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But why? The election aren't held at others time like Sarawak. It is not necessary to create an articleto describe it. If this keep, there will same article like Penang, Johor and other states. angys (Talk Talk) 11:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Vorbee mentioned above, the scope of this article is inherently dynamic as it will change after every election. The next is scheduled to take place in August. I will nominate similarly titled articles for move, and maybe they’ll end up at AfD. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of election article titling. Future election of uncertain date are named "Next Fooian [type] election". See eg Next Spanish general election or Next United Kingdom general election. Once dates are set (or the electiom must occur in a certain year) the articles are moved to include the year in the title. Number 5 7 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Articles on upcoming (and imminent) state-wide elections are well within the scope of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would also strongly second Number 57's point on systematic bias - it would send a peculiar message if this article were to be deleted while a multitudinous number of equivalent articles for English-speaking and Western countries remain. Eloquai (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, as you said, the state election has notability. So that means we can create more meaningless article e.g. Next Penang state election, Next Perlis state election, Next Johor state election and more. One thing you must know is that election will be held with general election. (Only S'wak for special case) So Wikipedia really needs 12 new Malaysia state election article, absolute No. angys (Talk Talk) 12:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles on those subjects could be expanded with information on the parties and candidates standing, the leaders and their respective platforms, the main state-wide issues, opinion polling, endorsements, and the campaign itself. I fail to see how that would be a 'meaningless' endeavour and, as noted, this article and all those potential articles would fall within Wikipedia's notability policies, which is the key issue for us here at AfD. Eloquai (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Thunder Fox (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderFox

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

Pre-internet games are notoriously hard to source, but this one seems harder than most. Coin945 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move - Arcade System games are always harder to find, but this one is mentioned on GameRankings, including two reviews. May have been harder to find, as the title is actually Thunder Fox. MobyGames also has reviews. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lee Vilenski, do you have a target for a move in mind?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As below User:E.M.Gregory, Thunder Fox would be the correct place to move. I'm sure it's not that big a deal, but it should be moved. Meets WP:GNG in my eyes. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep and move page to Thunder Fox as suggested by User:Lee Vilenski. the game has some notability, including popularity of the music as a chiptune and ongoing interest by aficionados of ancient games.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific Publishing

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

Three line stub. Does this really have enough notability for a whole article? Coin945 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources since creation. Does not notability guidelines for companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of arcade video games: Not released

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

Completely unsourced, this article contains a list of games struggling for independent notability due to all being unreleased. It's essentially a list of redlinks. Coin945 (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft that can easily be covered by an "Unreleased" under the year in the main list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm FWIW this was split when the main article was separated due to size concerns (June 2013). Talk:List of arcade video games#Size split?. The decision to separate "Unreleased" games seems to be an editorial decision of the user making the alphabetical split. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This really needs to be considered in the context of similar content. We have Category:Cancelled video games, Category:Vaporware video games, List of vaporware... Is this intended to correspond to one of those categories? Is it duplicative of the video game section of the latter list? Can it be developed further, should it be merged or redirected somewhere else, or should it just be deleted? I don't know the answer, and neither does the nominator because there's no discussion of how this fits in with other content. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD requires that we ask those questions before nominating anything for deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a category and many sub-categories already exist for Cancelled Video games. However this list has many issues regarding verifibility that need to be resolved. Ajf773 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of the current title. I th8nk something like List of unreleased arcade games comes off as more natural.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft of mostly red-linked entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable cruft by definition. Fails LISTN and can be better addressed through categories. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harobots

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

Article is confusingly written and scope is not clear. If this is notable is may be better to nuke and start again. Coin945 (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [36] better describes what the game actually is. No references, and unlikely to be any in English as the game was only released in Japan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin 3D

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

Unsourced wall of text. Coin945 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And redirect to the disambiguation page, Super ace. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Aces

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

Can't find any sources. Coin945 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like someone actually deleted the article all of these could have been merged too List of video poker games Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a redirect to the disambiguation, as suggested by Izno. In addition to the lack of sourcing, the article fails to explain the subject's significance.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 10:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional converter

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

Can't find enough coverage about this particular term. Coin945 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a good chunk of coverage related to a marketing term which I think makes this topic a valid red link for a different topic. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing video game

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

I don't think this is a sub-genre in the video gaming literature. Coin945 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I'd argue that it is. Monster of the Deep: Final Fantasy XV is keeping that fishing genre alive. There have been quite a few games that primarily revolve around fishing, as evidenced by the category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do they classify themselves as "fishing video games", and do critics bunch them all together into a 'genre'? Or do they all just happen to share a common theme?--Coin945 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they classify themselves as fishing games or simulators and there is a niche market for them. I remember there being various fishing rod peripherals. So I think there's enough for an article that would be unfit to merge into "action game"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a re-title, as this suggests that there was a video game called "fishing video game", either "fishing in Video Games", "List of Fishing in Video Games", or "Fishing Video Games" would be fine. I don't think it warrants deletion though, as there have been an awful lot of mini-games and full blown fishing titles over the years for an article on the topic to be viable. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Cross

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

Two-line stub unsourced since 2007, fails V and N. See the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Wiber. Sandstein 10:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Giant Bomb, Video Game Den Magazine Review, Computer and Video Game Magazine Review - The two magazine reviews should be enough to prove notoriety. I also feel like the old AfD for Cross Wiber was poorly reviewed, as there are several magazines that published reviews, that can be easily seen by one look at Mobygames Reviews for Cross Wiber. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Military simulation. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual battlefield

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

~~Is this a neologism? Coin945 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)~~ Fails WP:GNG--Coin945 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep SK1 - nominator does not advance a deletion rationale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Struck as rationale provided. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to military simulation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Zx. A redirect to military simulation seems most-fitting. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect appears to be the best solution here, I think, as it would be a valid search term. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above SeraphWiki (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - Can't say much else, it's not a standalone article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Laser Games. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout at Old Tucson

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

Can't find any sources. Coin945 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE was apparently not employed sufficiently. There are a dozen mentions in GBooks. Redirect to the producing entity. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Laser Games. Not sure about this one's notability, but my own researches never turned up any references to the game, and glancing over those GBook results I'm not confident that we'll find significant coverage there; it looks mostly like just simple lists of ALG's output. Incidentally, the article's statement "Soon after the game appeared on the market, American Laser Games went out of business, which, along with technical issues which limited its popularity in the arcades, further contributed to the title's obscurity." is outright false. As sourced in the company's article, ALG didn't drop out of the arcade business until November 1995, and they continued to produce console games for a while after that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher's Gallery

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

I can't find any sources. It's part of a larger series. Could be merged? Coin945 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Macintosh games. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AmoebArena

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

I can't find sources. Coin945 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found some blogs and websites dedicated to this game but no any real secondary sources. This game was a Macintosh game created way back in 1994 so I guess not much sources can be found. Anyway, I would suggest merging this game into List of Macintosh games instead of deleting it. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - Mobygames doesn't have any much, and GameRankings had nothing Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Po-Shen Loh

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

Fails WP:PROF. A two line stub. No clear notability established. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to keep per WP:PROF#C7 for his role in the IMO. News appearances: CBS [37], Washington Post [38][39], NPR [40], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [41], TribLive [42]. Interviews: FiveThirtyEight [43], Huffington Post [44], a New York Times online department [45]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Could you add those references to the article, perhaps along with a few comments about what they say? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Of the sources currently in the article [46] only [1] and [5] (TribLive and WashPost) have any nontrivial coverage about Loh himself rather than about how the team performed or what it takes to do well in the IMO. But two may be (barely) enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disclosure: I am the creator of this article. I believe, as XOR'easter says, the non-trivial coverage of Loh in major news sources (WP, NPR) and not just the IMO team or CMU warrant him an article by WP:PROF#C7. Wqwt (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist. Consensus needed to determine if sources included are enough to satisfy Notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by XOR'easter. —Gpc62 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Long Beach shooting

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

A tragic but otherwise unnotable shooting. The coverage was limited to a day (maybe two at best) but Wikipedia is not news and the death of the perp means no trial so continued coverage or a lasting impact are both highly unlikely. Some of this may be attested to a more recent shooting in the same region but an excuse doesn't suit our notability guidelines. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:EVENT. No lasting RS coverage for this event. No evidence of lasting impact. Non-notable workplace violence. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. This is sad and I wish it wasn't true, but... a shooting in the United States that only kills two people is far too common to be notable. It happens literally every day. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Full Grown. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Munro

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

Depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, and is about the company, not about the person. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaild point. Blackash (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Full Grown which has enough independent reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG whereas this article does not have enough sources for a stand alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Full Grown Blackash (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Company founder not notable on his own.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to 2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings as a duplicate article; no need to have two discussions ongoing at the same time. ansh 666 05:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Long Branch shooting

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

Per WP:NCRIME —cnzx (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a run-of-the-mill incident (by the US standards)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't say there has been anything particularly unique about the shooting of coverage. After all, Wikipedia is not news, nor is it an indiscriminate database for tragic shootings. Perhaps I am wrong but it is far too soon to determine and it is up to article creators to wait until notability is actually established.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Sadly, the murders of *ONLY* four people in a mass shooting is tragically too ordinary to merit the kind of long-term coverage that would establish notability. Any meaningful content could be preserved by a merge to Long Branch, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An AfD debate is also open for this crime at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I know, there have been no shootings yet in 2018 in Long Branch, New Jersey. Fails WP:CRYSTAL Rhadow (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME, and also as duplicative of the more developed 2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings, if it can survive its own AfD. No matter what happens on that page, this page should go. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete this is a duplicate article of 2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings, and I don't think it's notable at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James deSouza

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

Catholic priest of below bishop rank. WP:MILL biography, no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Cited coverage is passing mentions or dead links. Sandstein 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content, including context, suggests notability. It does need an update and clean-up, but leans towards notability. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the rather questionable phrasing leads me to believe he was the rector of St. Patrick's, a position of at least some significance, and he seems to have played a significant role in it's history. That ain't much, admittedly, but it might be enough for marginally qualifying as notable. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was a local parish preist and involved in founding a high school, this is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a rector of a seminary and a principal of a school is notable enough. And he is mentioned in four different independent reliable sources.~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 11:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At most Weak keep -- A long and no doubt useful career, but I doubt that being briefly head of what was probably a small seminary makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is mentioned in four reliable sources. Long career. Rector of seminary seals his notability. There are no reasons to delete him.desmay (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see the word mentioned a lot but the policy required detailed sources to count to N. Do detailed sources exist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Price

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

Fails GNG and JOURNALIST, in terms of notability. He's just an on-air journalist (as was I) for TV stations that do not have national reach or significance. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding a lot of substantial independent coverage about this television personality referred to as a "fixture" of Boston television news, a "long-time" anchor, and influential leader in the Gay community. Boston is not a small market. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston is also one of 200+ television markets in the country, which means being a "fixture" of Boston TV news means nothing elsewhere. That speaks nothing to notability. Also, being a "leader of the Gay Community" is rather vague. Which gay community? Is he Chad Griffin? Is he Cleve Jones? Is he Adam Bouska? How much of that was station hype and PR? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources discuss his role in Gay community. And he's not covered in some local community paper but covered extensively over many years in major papers in a major U.S. City. The leaders of Latvia means nothing to people in Omaha but we still include articles on them because they are notable. This guy is notable for Orlando and surrounsing areas where he's made an impact that's been reported on extensively as a reporter, Jack Kerouac preservstionist, and role model in the Gay community. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Price is the first openly gay television news anchor from United States [47], sufficient to keep notability. Genome$100 (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That claim originated from a station Price once worked in, and appears to be repeated by Towleroad. In any case, Towleroad is not a reliable source, IMO, because it does not report objectively. I don't think a PR stunt claim by a station is a ticket to notability. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article built on PR hype, not coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable TV newscaster with no indications of notability or significance. A promotional CV, basically. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi Map

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

Fails GNG. No significant coverage found. Third-party sources provided appear to be sponsored content without editorial independence. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This comment by the article creator suggests that the article is SEO spam. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can safely draw that conclusion from just that comment. Assume good faith. It is a reasonable expectation that a Wikipedia article one creates will become visible on Google - article creators want their article to be read, otherwise what would be the point of writing it - the article creator may not have known about Google's indexing delays or other possible benign explanations for the issue.--greenrd (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has serious grammatical and stylistic problems in places, but that can be fixed. There are clearly enough independent reliable sources covering this software to have an article about it - yes, some sources, like CNet Downloads and Crunchbase, just basically republish press releases, but not all of the references are of that type.--greenrd (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: WiFi Map has received coverage in Money Marketing, which is a major publication in the United Kingdom. However, as of now, that's the only notable source that I'm seeing. Crunchbase is also a pretentious publication but this seems to only be a company profile, rather than in-depth coverage. Unfortunately though, WiFi Map is not a new app and if it were truly notable, it would have received more coverage by now, in my opinion. Carajou (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an assertion of rs but no citations. It would help the decision if the keep side could show which sources are acceptable given the amount of pr here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per @James Allison:. "...sponsored content without editorial independence..." translates (to me) as advertisement, as "not notable" evidenced by a lack of reliable sources. If the company was notable (WiFi Map, LLC) maybe this could be placed in a section. The references on the article provides instructions (against policy), such as how to Access Millions of Hotspots Worldwide with the WiFi Map App". Advertising a company's "hacking app" might be interesting but providing space on Wikipedia for apps (with links and instructions) that can "25 Ethical WiFi Password Hacking Android Apps in 2017" "hack" (an internet guide reference) WiFi (article content: ...it deciphers all the passwords and codes that limit access...), touted as a plus for those with low-end data plans, does not seem like something an encyclopedia should provide. Research indicates there could be reliably sourced content on the subject of WiFi app's (purpose/use, pros, cons, legal issues) but not this advertising/instruction article or this specific app. See: Extra comments. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments: There are potential legal ramifications. When an app goes beyond broadcasting Public WiFi hotspots, to arguably stealing "private WiFi", otherwise referred to as “Piggybacking” or "WiFi squatting" and many have likely done this on a neighbors WiFi, but provides the location and passwords of "private" connections, this should be scary to many.

A friend can visit, ask permission (legal) to use your WiFi, then post this information (not legal) so others using the app can now use the WiFi which is stealing (unauthorized use) and if this person does not have unlimited WiFi (a lot of us don't) there is a monetary loss, but certainly a breech of privacy. If you look out your window, and see a strange vehicle do not be alarmed, it is just a person checking his/her facebook and not "casing the joint". If you are the person in the vehicle, do not worry (even if you are "casing the joint") just explain to the officer you were just checking your email using this cool app you learned about on Wikipedia (it could happen), apologize and you will just be directed to leave. There are plenty more private connections on the app you can "explore".

There have been arrests, litigation, and even corporate lawsuits (Comcast, Google) on the legality of "WiFi squatting" as violating the 1986 federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If you walk or drive down the street and your cell phone (or other tech equipment) hits on an open "hotspot" (intentionally open), this is not considered to be illegal but "IF you know" (your app is seeking out more than "open" WiFi) there can be culpability. At the least you are an accidental criminal. Now we have Wikipedia providing a vehicle to advance this with provided instructions.

"IF" consensus decides to keep this instruction manual , it should be reduced to the content of the lead as a stub (there will still be reliable sources issues concerning notability as opposed to advertising) either by consensus or an administrator. Wikipedia can surely (I hope) do better than this. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mashinsky

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to lack substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are intellectually independent from the subject. Rentier (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has a very good number of references in Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar and definitely meets the notability criteria. He is also the winner of Einstein Technology Award from Israeli Prime Minister. More references added after the article was tagged for deletion.REMIAH (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — REMIAH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not sure about the "very good number of references" REMIAH mentioned being of the non-trivial sort, but I did find this 1997 feature on Mashinsky in The Economist. The rest of the mentions of him in sources are mostly in conjunction with his companies, though a few provide a little information on his work within such companies (more than just a listing of his post as CEO), like this 1998 Business Week article and this MIT Technology Review article. Of questionable independence though potentially useful are a 2017 Forbes op-ed, this online article (and several others) from the editor-in-chief of CHIPIN.com, and this article from Light Reading Inc (it won't load for me so I cannot verify its usefulness). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, The Economist article is also a trivial mention, its main subject is one of his companies. The coverage of him is limited to seven words: "Israeli with a background in commodity trading" [48]. All in all, the collection of brief mentions clearly fails the spirit and the letter of WP:ANYBIO. As far as I can tell, no independent reliable source has ever dedicated more than half of a sentence to Mashinsky. Rentier (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to tell from Google Books snippets whether the coverage in the Economist article is significant or not. I have access to the full text via a university library and can confirm that there is very little coverage of Mashinsky himself - certainly none beyond the first paragraph, which contains the seven words quoted by Rentier and that he had the idea for his company's business model while lying in his bed in 1993 and had an office above a Manhattan disco. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks suspiciously promotional to me. Number 5 7 10:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No better source than the Economist article mentioned above has been found, and, as I have access to the full article, I can see that it only contains a tiny bit of trivial "human interest" stuff about Mashinsky himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your insights. What do you think of the following references? I think the following references definitely makes him eligible for a Wikipedia page. Looking forward for your insights.

Listing in Internet Telephony Magazine(Top 100 voices of IP Communication) with one full paragraph dedicated to him[1]

A full article dedicated to Alex Mashinsky on New Jersey Journal[2]

Listed in Business Insider's list of Top Entrepreneurs of 2011[3]

A complete article on Crains New York about Alex Mashinsky[4]

Winner of Einstein technology award from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu[5]

Technology Foresight Award from the Wall Street Journal and WCA at the International Telecommunications Union’s Telecom ’99 event[6]

Alex received the “Star of the Industry” award from the Computer Telephony Magazine for building the world’s largest PC switch and the world’s first soft-switch[7]

Another article from LightReading that discusses about Alex Mashinsky and his achievements[8]REMIAH (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. The awards and "top 100" and "top 35" listings are all the kind of thing that one gets if good at self-promotion, and kudos to Mashinsky for being good at that, but not the kind of thing that denotes real notability. The information in those sources all seems to come from Mashinsky himself, rather than any independent source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Refbombing insignificant sources that provide passing mention, related topics (such as a company related sources), or PR sources, does not advance notability but does make the article "look" like it is well sourced and referenced. Consensus is starting to see through the Looking-glass effect (George Herbert Mead) of a savy person and good PR with an ability to portray the social interaction with others, and get it noticed, but generally only within a certain social circle that does not reflect the "significant" reliable sources required for article inclusion. Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bartlett

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

Couldn't find any feasible third-party independent sources in accordance with the notability guidelines to back this article up. Sources at the moment are just small mentions that are affiliated with him. FiendYT ★ 19:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is the Sunday Times article and some coverage from Buzzfeed, both already in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write)

22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable as an "entrepreneur, investor, public speaker, internet personality or the Chief Executive Officer of influencer marketing agency Social Chain". The company is nn itself; it's CEO is even less so. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Weak Keep argument above: This is the only reference that has kept me from Delete. Still looking at WP:VERIFY. Ventric (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak coverage does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One-Stop Fun Shop

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

Non-notable compilation. Can be a footnote in the articles of those games. Coin945 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions but no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. JOE BRO 64 01:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a review for Review Corner, macHOME, and PC Mag. But, I will say, this is probably the worst written article I've read in a while. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; game has been reviewed by multiple RSes. Phediuk (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For now but ping me or drop me a note if you find sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have restored this per sources provided st [49]. Please start a new discussion if you disagree. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make Millions

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

Article does not assert its notability through third party reliable sources. Yes, this game is from 1984 and most sources will be offline so harder to locate, but atm I can't see any. Coin945 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This one is a tough one, due to the fact that it's from 1984, and was released really early in the Macs lifespan (Mac was also released in 1984). I can't find online sources, and there is no mention on MobyGames, but maybe someone who's a bit cleverer with archives might find something. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unable to establish notability through multiple reliable sources. There maybe some old magazines that covered it but I did a metadata search on archive.org which didn't turn up anything fruitful. Mattg82 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ilias Kanchan#Filmography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias Kanchan filmography

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

Pure listcruft. No sources, could be original research and the films the actor starred on doesn't even have their own articles. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does have its own article Ilias Kanchan but even then doesn't look like it passed WP:BLP either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ilias Kanchan, "one of Bangladesh's leading film actors" according to this source. --Michig (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This filmography article is apparently a split from Ilias Kanchan but without any attribution. The editor concerned has done the same sort of edit on numerous occasions, and has been warned about the processes involved in copying within Wikipedia and in splitting, but after receiving the warning has continued to make unattributed copies. I fear that a block may be necessary. David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have restored the full filmography in the Ilias Kanchan article. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ilias_Kanchan#Filmography; with the filmography restored, the current article is an unneeded content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, article is not long enough to require splitting Atlantic306 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I also reverted some of his same type of edit. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Memory of the World Register

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

This article is no more than a WP:CFORK of Memory of the World Register – Asia and the Pacific. It contains a list of the Filipino documents listed in the UNESCO register, which is the same content that can be found in the parent article, plus what seems to be a long and unencyclopedic rant by the author about what documents they believe should be included on the register (a violation of WP:NOR).

Unlike the similarly-titled UK Memory of the World Register, which concerns a distinct national list maintained by the British government independent of UNESCO, there is no indication anywhere other than this Wikipedia article that such a list exists in the Philippines. The website of the Filipino delegation to UNESCO mentions nothing about the existence of such a register. Rfwang4 (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This WP:SOAPBOXing WP:ESSAY whose main contents are an attempt to convince the Philippines to make additional nominations to the register - listing possible events (and lets mind WP:BALL and reasons they should be nominated as well as chiding the Philippines for failing to nominate (the 2011 memory being nominated by foreigners).Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that there is no reason provided that this fork deserves its own article. While the Philippine government does maintain a register of cultural properties that includes documents, there is no specific register for documents. —seav (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete -- An article such as this might be legitimate, but this is not it. The article would concentrate on describing the four registered archives, whereas much of this is a soapbox essay on non-registered items that the author considers important. The alternative might be to prune of essay off it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Like Me (novel)

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

Does not appear to be a notable novel; I couldn't find any significant coverage at all online, though as it's from 1997, it's possible that there might be offline coverage out there. The book's author does not have an article and does not appear to be notable either, so there's no possible redirect target as an alternative. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge. It won a Children's Book of the Year Award: Younger Readers award in 1998, and received newspaper coverage in the Herald Sun and West Australian at the time. Appears to be used widely in primary school education (see here and here). I'd suggest merge would be more appropriate, but there is currently no article on Elaine Forrestal (who is clearly notable, with 35 Factiva hits to her name across 20 years). Kb.au (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trove (search) and Austlit records indicate notability, as it has been adapted into part of the school curriculum and has been multiply reviewed. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is involved with the education of children, and this can nver be a bad thing. While it may not be notable with "worldwide" coverage it is country specific, and this is needed for an endepth coverage sought on Wikipedia. I am into many things ATM but I would think (concern mentioned above on the weak keep, that that there would be enough reliable sources "out there", including achedemic coverage (I hope), and looks like as also mentioned in the weak keep !vote. The condition of article references (or lack thereof) is not important compared to what is available and not located. We do not have to delete at this time and can revisit later right? Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jumana Nagarwala

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

Considering there are just charges, this may be a BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems properly sourced, and there is a little bit of sourced background information. If it’s not possible to gather more information about this person outside of the charges, then it can be moved to whatever this case is called – perhaps Nagarwala case – with this title as a redirect. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete we can post an article after the charges are resolved. This is indeed a BLP issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP issues, and that Wikipedia is not a current news reporting vehicle. There are names of people in the article, other than the subject, and there is not enough in reliable sources to just "splash names out there". This is an encyclopedia and it is too soon for breaking news along with the BLP issues. Otr500 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. This is a biography of one alleged event with only token biographical content. This person has no claim of notability without the not yet proven accusation. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Moving and refocusing the article can be discussed on the talk page. ansh 666 02:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Peace and Peace Research

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

individual academic paper, notable by itself, only in context of the author's work. It is not clear that the 3rd party references are references substantially tho this particular paper, or to the author's work in general, or to the problem that he has studied. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. Do we do that, articles for individual journal articles? At more than 5000 cites, this is definitely is a "seminal" work, but generally even heavier hitters tend to form part of the originator's article or an article discussing the wider topic (e.g. Hirotugu Akaike/Akaike information criterion at 38k+ [50]). On the gripping hand, that paper seems complex enough to merit article-length treatment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Conflict Triangle", that way it isn't specifically referring to the paper but rather the main theory being discussed within it EvilxFish (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept that as a rename. It would dealwith some of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Conflict Triangle SeraphWiki (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article (bearing in mind its title) does not have any focus and is an opinion essay on a topic. To me, it fails to establish the notability of the article in itself (c.f. On the Origin of Species). So Rename to Conflict Triangle may be appropriate with some cleanup to ensure it retains focus and notability, or alternatively a redirect to Johan Galtung. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a lack of notability, reliable sources, and focus. Changing the name won't fix this. See my rationale in comments and extra comments below. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Hold the horses up here. Discussions are forming to gain consensus to rename the article and I am trying to figure out how that is going to "fix" ANYTHING. I am still at 1)- "there are issues", and 2)- "Do we do that?" (normally, some exceptions, or at all) on a 26 page research journal (academic paper) article. The "gripping" part is notability "of this subject and article". Being complex enough to merit article-length treatment would just mean the introduction of even more WP:OR and synthesis than is already evident. Objectively re-read the "paper" and look at the primary source. After that, and considering the lack of coverage in reliable sources "on this subject", with what is presented in the article, and look at the article again. The "suggested" target title (Conflict Triangle) is one concept touched on in the "paper". How can just changing the title to a more narrow area solve anything? Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments:

This is certainly an interesting area but with a vague overall concept not directly dealt with in reliable sources. The "paper" is all over the map as is this article. Look at the Direct Violence section with an unsourced first paragraph. This sets the stage for the following paragraphs and I see synthesis. There are beginning references like Malhotra, Anju. "Solutions to End Child Marriage", and the swing into what appears to be fringe theories. Even if someone can point me to a connection in the "paper" to content related to child marriage, and the overall subject of this article, PLEASE do, look at it again. I am all for being against "child marriage', but this content presents a biased and POV view from the ICRW that: "Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental human rights violation.". Yes this is content (and can be deleted) but a lack of overall reliable sources to tie this as well as other forks into the article is how we end up with this mess and a future article so broad as to be worthless and generally unsupported by reliable sources.

It gets worse. The next unsourced section (Reinforcing Factors): "Galtung focuses a section of the paper", refers to content from the primary source with no text–source integrity so we have to read the whole thing to try to determine anything.

More on getting "worse": The citation style pointing to references. I am to believe that we provide an inline citation to provide verification of text, providing text–source integrity, of the content proceeding the reference. In this article we have a beginning reference that supports a couple of lines then a whole lot of actually unsupported content. Look at the third and fourth paragraphs of of the Direct Violence section, or for that matter the whole article is the same, like with the Cultural Violence section. This is a mess that changing the title will not fix. Redirecting to a section in the Johan Galtung concerning the "paper" (that would be appropriate) would mean we would need to get rid of all the "junk", that is a majority of the article, and place it in a section. I could not even verify the content of the Criticism section. The first reference "Brewer, John D. (2010). Peace processes: a Sociological Approach. Polity Press" should support content that includes "Johan Galtung's Conflict Triangle and Peace Research paper are widely cited as the foundational pieces of theory". The second reference (Lawler, Peter (1995). A Question of Values: Johan Galtung's Peace Research. Lynne Rienner) in the second paragraph supports "Galtung uses a positivist approach". This is a 267 page book, again with no actual text–source integrity, lacking page numbers. I would submit that maintaining any hope of "focus" with a stand-alone article would be near impossible, even if we could renamed it Johan Galtung (Violence Peace and Peace Research) as a split, so I see an interesting area attempted to be presented in an un-salvageable article. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has sufficient resources and valuable content. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate it as a redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame, feel free. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jacme

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources are not reliable enough for notability, and searching on Google does not give even a single result at all. Steve Quinn tried to draftify this, but the draftification was reverted by Malik Shabazz. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep My search found some coverage to boost the argument that WP:GNG is met plus being in the AVN hall of fame meets WP:PORNBIO.Sandals1 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources that show GNG is met and the AVN hall of fame is not an independent reliable source as its function is to promote the porn industry and its actors. Notablity is not inherited. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The sources are not reliable enough for notability"? AVN and XBIZ are the trade journals of the business in which Jacme was employed. She's a member of the AVN Hall of Fame, which (as Sandals1 wrote) means she satisfies WP:PORNBIO. And Lil' Kim cited Jacme in her song "Big Momma Thang" (ranked #13 among the "50 Best Rap Songs by Women"). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is no where near enough to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources cover this subject. Fails WP:NRV and WP:NBIO. All sources are industry related AVN magazine and XBIZ - this is not independent coverage. AVN awards are not independent coverage. Also, WP:BLP requires the subject's Wikipedia bio meet GNG standards and be verified as notable. With only non-independent coverage, as mentioned, this bio fails WP:BLP (which is policy) and WP:SOURCE (which is policy) because notability must be verifiable with reliable sources. If PORNBIO conflicts with BLP then BLP is the standard that must be adhered to. We strive for high quality articles sourced by high quality sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. This BLP simply lacks any non-trivial reliable sourcing; the references are generally press releases, presskit pieces, and kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG, Also dont see any point redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame where the subject is mentioned. Article contains no relevant encyclopedic prose and significant RS coverage not found; see WP:NOPAGE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NookieChat

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

An advertorially toned page for a nn business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article sourced to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. Created by Special:Contributions/KingofEnggs currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It is website though the indeffed user mangled things. By the content of the sources and their reliability it totally fails general WP:GNG and specific WP:NWEB. One article from AVN is announcement of launching likewise the rest are short descriptions. No substantial coverage to establish notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Corp; advert piece of a non-notable website/company. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above comments SeraphWiki (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Picasso

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

Only trivial mentions in sources. Of the sources cited, 3 are one sentence descriptions of shows he did, 1 is a 3/4 sentence description of a show he did, 1 is a column by the author, and 1 is an explanation of a trick he developed. See Talk:Tony Picasso#Source content. Fails WP:GNG. Awards mentioned are not notable so fails WP:ANYBIO. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources coming up in searches. Subject doesn't appear to meet either general notability or notability for entertainers. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Caperal

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anjo Caram

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Echavez

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delte does not meet the notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mat McCoy

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

Can only find trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first 40 results of a Google search failed to find significant coverage of reliable sources about the topic. Therefore, per GNG, it is presumed to be not suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage whatsoever in mainstream media. Only trivial/minor mentions elsewhere. Does not meet GNG. Kb.au (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pupetter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems like this discussion hinges on whether the proffered sources are indeed sufficient to establish GNG based notability, and opinions appear to vary (especially on the "in-depth" coverage question) without a killer argument being presented in either direction. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Buell

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

Subject does not meet notability requirements and article has had outstanding issues since at least 2010. MisterTimelord (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (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/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fring individuals, like paranormal investigators, require very good sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic meets WP:GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject^[1]^[2]^[3], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page has never had its issues addressed, and Ryan Buell is not notable except for having a short-lived show on A&E in which he pretended to investigate ghosts. 8.41.72.250 (talk)— 8.41.72.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment:Instead of being deleted, given that the topic is notable, has potential, and workable reliable sources, but has quality issues, maybe, per WP:ATD-I it should be moved to draft namespace, to be improved, and eventually moved back to mainspace when it meets quality standards. Thinker78 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just because someone did something on TV once or for busted for a couple crimes does not automatically make them notable. By that logic, everyone who has ever been either arrested or on TV for any purpose is qualified for a Wikipedia entry. 67.247.151.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — 67.247.151.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Subject meets GNG. He was a main character in a popular TV show that was presented in the whole country, and probably internationally through cable, and he was in it for a few years. That's why many reliable sources address the subject directly and in detail, because he is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in People^[4], ABC (above), the Chicago Tribune^[5] and Enews^[6], along with general coverage in the context of the show (I know notability is not inherited which is why I'm showing the other coverage) suggests he passes WP:GNG. Another way of looking at it - his legal skirmishes are all getting media coverage only because he's notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:CELEBRITY. Those are two excellent guidelines that let us evaluate whether a person (note this is a living, breathing person we're talking about having an article focused solely on) should be subject to biographical scrutiny. In this case, neither of these criteria are fulfilled. Arguments that the person fulfills WP:GNG hinge mostly on the television show in which he was featured meeting the requirements for inclusion. A redirect to the television show may be appropriate, but keeping a separate biography with the notability lacking as it is in this case is something that we should not be doing and I would hate for precedent to be kept in keeping a biography solely on the basis of entanglements with the law and incidents indicating a failure to launch. jps (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what criteria you are referring to regarding WP:FRINGEBLP. Could you please quote the relevant text in said guideline? What I found in WP:FRINGEBLP actually supports keeping the article. Namely the guideline states, "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". As shown previously, there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. For me "enough" would be at least three different reliable and independent sources. Consequently, the topic meets WP:FRINGEBLP criteria. Regarding WP:CELEBRITY, its second criteria says, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; according to ABC, "Buell has a pretty big fan base across the country". And, as mentioned previously, the topic meets GNG, therefore it is notable. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", and such sources has already been shown in a previous comment. If you don't like what the sources talk about the subject, please quote a specific policy or guideline that backs up what you say. Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." We don't have such sources. We have sensationalized news stories of the "dog bites man" sort. There is no source that has been identified which offers a serious, extensive biographical look at this subject. Rather we have sources which salaciously tell the story of a cancer diagnosis that may have been fake, a promotional tour that never was, and arrest and convictions that may be related to a drug addiction. That's not good enough. jps (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with you. The sources I posted discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. And they also have significant coverage about the subject, therefore meeting GNG also. Notice how GNG establishes the criteria only as "significant coverage", which is defined as "directly and in detail". All that coverage by different, independent, reliable sources makes the topic notable. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that are listed here investigate the subject in an extensive manner. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. jps (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but needs a bit of work. He seems notable (vaguely) but not really for the right reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TimTempleton.- Mr X 🖋 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any independent and non-WP:SENSATIONal coverage to Paranormal State, the TV show Buell derives his extremely limited celebrity from. Then clean up the truly awful Paranormal State article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. As proven with example sources above, topic meets GNG, which states, "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"". And WP:SENSATION is a guideline for events not people. Besides, the article is not about a scandal or some gossip, but about a notable former TV show presenter. Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clarifying sentence since it seems that noob Wikipedians can't help but be pedantic. SMH. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources about the person (not his show: the person) along time build a solid WP:GNG case. "Sensationalism" is far from being an objective criteria, and it seems akin to a proxy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. - cyclopia^speak! 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now. You're supposed to assume good faith. The problem with using sensationalized news stories as a basis for notability is that you can do very real harm to living people. I could equally argue that I take the editorial responsibility of content curation at a top ten website more seriously than you and maybe you're just out for this poor man's blood. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now, now. I haven't the slightest idea of what do you mean about being 'out of this poor man's blood' -why should I want this? Why should I have anything against the subject of this article? Now, I could say that, if anything, I am taking seriously our responsibility, by ensuring that we cover sourced information regardless of how much we like it or not, or any handwaving about 'harm' (which there isn't, as long as we stick to the sources and strive for NPOV). You can insinuate and poison the well as much as you want. Fact is, this guy is well sourced, and as such there is no reason to delete the article.- cyclopia^speak! 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Well sourced" in this case is to tabloid journalism-style pieces. jps (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashi Singh

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

This orphaned article fails WP:NACTOR: "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Actor has had a lead role in one (singular) television show, plus one minor role in a different show, and also appeared in a YouTube video. The one TV show she has had a lead role in is produced by a minor Indian (sub top 5) TV network. A search on Google News fails to find significant coverage in RS, with mentions of her limited to indianwikimedia and a few other non-RS sites. The only source currently in this article simply establishes that she is currently alive, and provides no further information including DOB, place of birth, or any other basic biographical data. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delte one source is not enough to establish notability. I have to ask that people start a general review of actor articles. We have far too many that have one source, with that one source being IMDb, expliicitly called "not a reliable source" by Wikipedia guidelines. Some of these articles have been tagged with a request for better sources for 4 or more years. It is high time a major review of actor and film articles be undertaken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Bates

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

The article lacks any reliable sources. IMDb is enough to demonstrate someone existed, not that they were notable. A search on google showed a collection of primary and non-reliable sources, such as Find a Grave, but nothing that rose to the level of substantial mention in a secondary source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was in over 90 films during pre-internet era, and we may presume that sources exist. From the nice photo in the article he seems vaguely familiar and if I saw him on the street i'd be "Don't I know you from somewhere", but character actors get that all the time. --Doncram (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes sourcing is a problem. (I started this article, so it's my fault.) If we agree that Granville Bates actually existed, the core issue is notability. In my opinion he meets that bar with a 35-year career and "significant roles in multiple notable films" per WP:ENT. --Lockley (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film and stage actor whose career spanned over 40 years ([51]). Many major roles, as indicated in sources from the time of his films. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantive sources are identified. The link above only says that the subject had a long career, not an assessment of it or its impact. Seeing some actual sources would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. I've added several New York Times movie reviews that singled him out for praise. Presumably there are more in other publications. Plus he appeared in a bunch of Broadway plays.[52] Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He got an obituary in the July 10, 1940 Cincinnati Enquirer, Harrisburg Telegraph and various other papers, though I can't see much without a subscription, and what looks like another one in the July 11 Pittsburgh Press. The Los Angeles Times wrote about his performance in My Favorite Wife on May 3, 1940, the Palladium-Item has his name in big bold font on November 4, 1939, etc. Somebody with an active newspapers.com subscription should clip/cite these things. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Mi-na

AfDs for this article:

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

This orphaned article may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. While we have two WP:RS that establish Shin Mi-na is, in fact, a real living person, neither of them provide any substantive information on her and only mention her in passing. We don't even have a source to confirm her DOB. Three years ago she published a poem on a small geocities-esque website (http://creationandcriticism.com/) and she has another poem scheduled to be published on the same website. Chetsford (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack substial coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. Toosoon, as nom mentioned. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adorini (TV series)

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

~~Unsourced page for TV series. No coverage on Google. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – difficult to find even trivial mentions in reliable sources, not notable. PriceDL (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to List of programs broadcast by Star Jalsha. This might (or might not; I'm not sure...) be a good source. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources exist to demonstrate notability, although there is a page on the India Times suggesting the show does exist [[53]], with multiple episodes. With no notability, it merits nothing more than being on a list of programs. It is already listed at List of programs broadcast by Star Jalsha, and at Star Jalsha#List of currently broadcast programs. Indeed, it's not worth even trying to find content to merge. See deletion history for Adorini and Draft:Adorini - this was apparently recreated to circumvent consensus. Very suspicious that the original article was deleted twice in March 2015 and yet this version says the show premiered on Sept. 4, 2017. Might need a SALT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Lamberty

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

Fails GNG and JOURNALIST, in terms of notability. He's just an on-air journalist (as was I) for TV stations that do not have national reach or significance. He's also a freelance journalist, of which there are many in the US. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary host for 2 years on primetime news show on a major Boston TV station Atlantic306 (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston is one of 210 television markets in the country, and there's more than one news station in Boston. That speaks nothing to notability. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of 3rd party coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of notability period; let alone for a BLP. A newsreporter, co-anchor, anchor, main news anchor but was fired, and made the circular job trail again. Last count was a weekend evening anchor. A 2006 article, and we could argue article longivity, but that would would likely invoke consensus by silence. The subject has no listed awards, no specific accomplishments or well-known works, and certainly nothing monumental as a journalist, so fails, GNG. Lands right in the middle of a series of day-to-day living and jobs, without even a qualifying single event, so "clearly not notable". Otr500 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If any participants (or others) want a copy of the article to incorporate content into other (appropriate) articles, I can userfy or email you a copy. There seems to be clear consensus that this article, as it stands, violates WP:NOT. As an interesting note, there was something like 17 redirects pointing to this page, which I deleted. Wow. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method

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

This is a how-to guide, not an encyclopedia article. Worse, it's a how-to guide giving advice on a mental health topic, which arguably makes it medical advice, something Wikipedia explicitly should not give. It may be possible to write separate encyclopedia articles about the "no contact rule" or the "grey rock method", but this page is not an encyclopedia article and cannot be turned into one. If someone has an idea what alternative outlet might be interested in this kind of content, moving it somewhere else before it's deleted here may be an option. Huon (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM. Dolescum (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HowTos are not what Wikipedia is for.L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pages that function in the most part as a how to definitely fail our first pillar. And a mental health how to at that... I really hope this gets SNOW deleted in the absence of a fitting speedy deletion criterion as this could be picked up by a victim and who knows if this is right... And good call not necessarily waiting the 7 days of a PROD, Huon. Undoubtedly not a valid search term and reason against preserving the article's history at that, so certainly no redirect, even with a merge (not that that's going to happen). Huon explains the rest better than I could. Happy New Year! /// J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete and split into two separate articles per Joe. No reason to preserve the article's revision history and even then redirecting would be biased towards one topic of the current article. And still, please can this SNOW? J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 20:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only how to info is in the grey rock method section and even that is truncated. There is specifically no such info in the no contact rule section. The article is primarily about the concepts rather than giving how to info. The article fits in well with the cycle of abuse, personal boundaries, don't feed the trolls, keep your head down, keep a low profile and lie low concepts. The hoovering section is specifically an adjunct to cycle of abuse.--Penbat (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split and rename. I think there's an encyclopaedic topic here. Or rather two topics. It's really just the bad title that frames it as advice. Split it into no contact rule and grey rock method and focus on expanding it with references to psychological and counselling literature. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known medical techniques such as surgery, even psychological in nature, are encyclopedic. The fact that this is not strictly physical surgery does not exclude it from medical information. Psychological 'medicine' is most certainly of interest and not a how-to. Cirrus909 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah. What? Psychological surgery? I hope you're not referring to psychic surgery. Are you suggesting that these self-help techniques are akin to surgery??? I don't understand what you're getting at with this comment. Apologies if I've misunderstood. Famous _dog (c) 10:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, renamed at the very least While no contact rule & grey rock method might be subjects to include on WP, redirecting them to this article as it stands does not seem correct as I'm sure you could use these concepts on other people as well as abusers. Mattg82 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might go better on WikiHow ? DS (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relies on some pretty ropey self-helpy sources and lifestyle journalism. If these two techniques are so notable, they should have their own articles with much shorter titles. Famous _dog (c) 10:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I proposed a move to Grey rock method a few months ago which was closed as No Consensus; I still feel the title is clearly non-encyclopedic and should be changed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Self-help advice for dealing with abusers" or delete (as I previously suggested). I oppose splitting, because that will result in having two low-quality articles instead of one (and will encourage creation of even more articles as additional techniques become identified). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every pop psychology self-help technique ever proposed, sourced to websites of questionable reliability like queenbeeing.com and lonerwolf.com, doesn't deserve an article in a serious encyclopedia. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well explained nom. It is ridiculous that an article can be created, in clear violation of policy (not having self-help articles) (and others) on Wikipedia, and then the work involved in "possible" removal. Otr500 (talk)

Extra comments: We have comments to keep the article, I suppose just to "push the envelope", even offering "Rename to "Self-help advice" (or delete)". Three references each on both "concepts make it seem well referenced but is actually just ref-bombing. A problem is the "combining" of Disengaging from an abuser, with one "method" the self-explanatory "no contact rule" and a totally different "grey rock method", is a problem when the combination is synthesis (even in the title), which is part of the no original research policy. Moving the title to "Grey rock method" would just be a shorter title and combining two different concepts. There should be no place on Wikipedia for any of this combining. I am not stating either "concept" is not likely notable on their own but this article and the self-help concept is more often than not biased. Both have controversies (like references, "no contact rule after breakup" and conclusion that it dosn't work and "Do You Sabotage Yourself With the Gray Rock Method?) but the "feel-good" concept of "helping yourself" will usually leave that out, certainly against WP:5P2. Note: I am against sites like lownerwolf (not reliable source) because the articles almost always conclude with advertising to buy, as opposed to just editorials: lonerwolf.com; COMPLETE WORKS MEGA BUNDLE, so a person reading and identifying with the reference, would need to invoke some form of "grey rock technique" to avoid being sucked into the bundle offer. Otr500 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Joe Aviance

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

Non-notable individual lacking notability beyond WP:1EVENT. Subject is known for losing weight. No evidence of being a notable musical artist. Although he has appeared on TV, none of this appears to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing Aviance has done comes close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Happy New Year everyone and apologies in advance if I make any errors as I'm pretty new on this board. That said, the subject is not only notable for one event (his weight loss) which received plenty of coverage in the media ([54], [55], [56]), but he was initially notable as a recording artist. It was his notability as a recording artist which gave rise to the coverage of his weight loss -, as the catalyst for the weight loss was because of his appearance in Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life (While a DJ Gave Me Trouble) music video and him not liking how he looked as stated in the article. The track Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life (While a DJ Gave Me Trouble) which he appeared in reached number 6 in the Billboards and received plenty of airtime on music stations like MTV and VH1 as stated in the article ("While the musician chose to ignore his unhealthy lifestyle for years, it was a video for his popular 2009 dance anthem, Last Night A DJ Saved My Life that finally triggered him to take action." - "When he saw the footage for the song - which hit number six on the Billboard Magazine Dance Charts and continually played on MTV and VH1 - he couldn’t get over how large he’d become." ; In 2013, he toured the US with his music [57]. He has even been credited on Billboard's publication of 21 Feb 2009 in their "Hot Dance Club Play" list[58]. It's entry kept fluctuating but has been on the charts for 9 weeks according to that source. Along with his music, he has been interviewed on countless TV programmes such as Rachael, The Doctors and Good Morning America [59], [60] [61]. If he was not notable, he would not have been interviewed.[62]. Even IMDb credited him for his filmography - who rigorously go through every footage and credit before crediting individual's bios [63]. A lot of his work are available online for viewing. He has produced, directed, written and appeared in numerous documentaries /films and hosted many shows as stated in his filmography. He has received awards from the City of West Hollywood [64] as well as the American Heart Association which he serves as ambassador [65]. Whatever the community and the closing admin decides, that's fine. I thank everyone for their contribution. Be blessed! CultureCouture (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. The subject passes WP:N with extensive in depth coverage of him from independent WP:RS. CultureCouture (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only one vote! per person. Far from it, the items you point out above are far from adequate to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was notable enough for them to have him on their shows and talked about him in detail in RS. All I'm seeing here is I don't like it or can't be bothered so delete. I'm also very concerned about the nominator's nomination habit. Going through his log, one finds that he nominate articles on the same day they were created, and instead of adding cats to uncategorized new articles, he rather tag them. This is frowned upon by Wikipedians.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - You obliviously do not understand the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. It is based on the application of valid references as defined by Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with "real-world" popularity. Additionally, I do not believe the references meet the criteria for inclusion. On a side note, if you feel the user's nomination does not reflect the standards of Wikipedia, I suggest you issue a complaint in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or whatever noticeboard you deem applicable. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll tell you what I don't understand: You tagging newly created articles within minutes or few hours of their creation thereby disrupting the project and driving new editors away; not even bothering to find sources; tagging uncategorised new articles when you could have simply added one cat (the time and energy you spent tagging an uncat articles, you could have spent it adding a cat). I can go on forever, but let's not. Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - </sigh> Again, please read my prior comment. Also, do you think making comments such as, "Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack," assumes good faith or does not meet the criteria in WP:UNCIVIL or WP:UIC? reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course we should always assume good faith. However when this becomes a habit going by one's "edit" history, then obviously there is a problem. WP:DRIVEBY without making any effort to improve the article is certainly not helpful to the project. Biting newbies with silly tags within minutes of creating an article which has not even been developed yet causes them to give up and drives them away. This is what you've been doing for years going by your edit history. The facts are the facts, and we can't claim WP:AGF when the facts are staring us right in the face. You want people to assume good faith but you don't want to afford the same to newbies? You can't have it both ways. I rather not derail this discussion any further with silly comments back and forth, so knock yourself out and don't forget to turn the lights off on your way out. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @killiondude and Spartaz Shouldn't this debate be closed (since yesterday by the look of things)? Poor CultureCouture! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's rationale of WP:1EVENT. Even coverage of that is pretty scant. Some folks do take their 15 minutes of fame and manage to parlay it into a career during which they do rise to the level of notability. This is not one of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree, and actually agree with CultureCouture. He was notable first as an artist which precipitated his weight loss which also received plenty of coverage. There are plenty of sources cited and all I'm seeing is I don't like it or lazy nomination as I have seen before with the nominator of this article since I have had a running with them in numerous articles where they ignored WP:BEFORE. Even if we are to go with your (and the nominator's) one event rationale, a separate article can still be created according to policy as "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one." Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would clarify which side of the argument is policy base. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting irrelevant commentary

Comment I thought this discussion was supposed to be closed two days ago and we can't relist thrice in a row? CultureCouture (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my last comment on this dubious and disingenuous nomination and discussion. A clear disregard for policy as stated here. Most of the sources cited are reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, and cover the subject in detail as evident therein. This is merely a ruse in my opinion, and a deliberate attempt to flout policy and enable certain individuals to canvas and vote according to their own biases. The deliberate targeting of Black / African articles is just foolishness. We need editors in this field but some individuals are chasing them away from the project with their foolishness. @ CultureCouture, if you need help to escalate and report this do not hesitate to contact me. Terrible! Absolutely terrible! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO, sources are too sketchy to meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 00:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. -- Begoon 00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Whitehead

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL as League of Ireland isn't fully professional and not enough for WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 06:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our ridiculously low notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child Lying

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

Indiscriminate POV fork, article is not focused on one topic, written like an essay. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm actually convinced that a topic such as this merits inclusion on Wikipedia and could even be expanded to include the effect of being part of a certain demographic and the consequent behavior, e.g. race, religion, parental income, etc. Carajou (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect a page on this topic is notable and worthy of inclusion, but I have to protest the name of this page. It implies "child lying" is some recognized term and as far as I can tell it isn't. This is a page describing the study of lying in adolescent years and has sources to that effect, but they don't support the page's implication that this is accepted terminology. Wikipedia exists to explain terminology for notable topics, not invent it. I think this page should be renamed if kept. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm in agreement with Shelbystripes that the current name is not suitable. If this page survives the AfD, there should be a RM discussion about the article's title. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable as how children are raised obviously affects society when they have positions of power as adults. Moral education is an important topic. Needs some editing such as "what is a lie" heading/content after the intro is rather pedantic/repetitive. People know what lies are. It would also be a good idea to research what religious authorities say about the topic.Knox490 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear from citations that there is a recognised area of social science research called "Child Lying". Article describes several studies of children's honesty but does not make a case for the notability of a concept of child lying - article could as easily be called Child Morality, Moral Development or Child Honesty. Sections describing what a lie is do not seem relevant and there may be some original research included (eg the statement without citations, "The results of these experiments do not completely disagree with Piaget's findings and even complement and validate portions of his work"). Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked deep into this subject and article so bear with me. I found a complete build-up of an unsourced or under-sourced collection of synthesis resulting in original research. This is what is to love about the many branches (disciplines) of psychology covered on Wikipedia. This "study" (research/article) concerning an area of Child psychology, a branch or specialty of "developmental psychology", is interesting but where are the sources to actually back up the subject? Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comments: The issue is that we (Wikipedia/editors) can place a few references on an article with a made up name, delve into the psychology side that makes it seem "official", interesting, or factually relevant, lets make it a C-class size but with only enough references (12 at this time) for a stub-class, and there you go, now we can argue why we should keep it.

The citation placement fosters and advances an article full of possible WP:OR. Open a paragraph with from three to five words, hit it with relevant (for that content) references, then follow it with a whole lot of content that is not sourced. Pretty cool idea if we can get away with it.

Now we have editors already wanting to expand this interesting "theory" or study into other areas and articles. This one could have been pieced together from a dissertation, and by "expanding" we can have more made up, unsourced, or wrongly sourced piece-meal articles. We can create another article revolving around "It would also be a good idea to research what religious authorities say about the topic.", as "research" surely can equal; make a new article. Want to see verified original research?: Look no farther than every single Results sub-sections. There are three of them with lots content with percentages and not one reference to back any of it up. Look at the third paragraph of the Significance section: "Both Piaget and Kolhberg neglected to observe the significance of how younger children fit into the equation of moral development. The experiments of Kang Lee and others have led to differing conclusions that have shed new light on how the moral and cognitive development of young children works.". I just looked up one of the four sources and what I see is a conclusion drawn by an editor, not the sources, and I would wager that will be the case for the other three. The sources have to conclusively back up content that is relevant to the subject (Child Lying), or it is just added "crap", and who are the "others"? How is "...differing conclusions that have shed new light on how the moral and cognitive development of young children works." related? To me the idea is interesting but someone please explain how we can actually "save this article". Cut it back to a lead only stub? Where should it go since the current title is certainly inappropriate? If notability is the main issue how will those be a solution? I can't even see an instance where we can ignore "the rules" and keep. Then again, a lot of things on Wikipedia don't make sense right? Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echoes of War

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

I found nothing. At least it could theoretically be merged to the larger franchise. Coin945 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE - What do you mean "you found nothing"? Five seconds on Google: https://www.discogs.com/Eminence-Symphony-Orchestra-Echoes-of-War-The-music-of-Blizzard-Entertainment/release/7752791, https://www.destructoid.com/echoes-of-war-the-music-of-blizzard-entertainment-music-cd-announced-109562.phtml, https://kotaku.com/5084025/composing-the-soundtrack-to-blizzards-world, https://web.archive.org/web/20081030072413/http://music.ign.com/articles/923/923395p1.html Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Them!

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

A nothingburger of an article. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously you haven't bothered to check for sources for this one. Topic clear meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. It has widespread coverage from reliable secondary sources. In one minute I found web reviews from VideoGamer.com, GamesRadar, IGN, Eurogamer, GameSpot, GameZone; and print reviews from Official PlayStation Magazine UK, GamesMaster, Play, Edge, Official PlayStation Magazine US. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. The reviews of GameSpot and that of GameZone do show that. In addition to sources provided above. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know the article has had references added, but that clearly shows it passes WP:GNG Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The B-Girlz

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:NMUSIC, no coverage other than local or passing mentions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the best coverage I found. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail on WP:GNG. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly needs referencing improvement, but the issue here is that they haven't been as active in the 2010s as they were in the 2000s (they still perform together occasionally, but far more rarely), so a simple Google search wouldn't be expected to find very much coverage — it becomes distinctly less reliable for finding media coverage that's more than about a year or two old. But on a ProQuest search for older coverage, I get 70 hits dating between 1998 and 2009 from a variety of publications not limited to Toronto alone. So there is enough coverage to repair this, and I'll take a pass at it later today. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there's more that can be done here still with more time and effort, but for the time being I've got it to something quite a lot less advertorialized and citing 14 proper sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate Bearcat's improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearcat's valiant WP:HEY-bailing :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires better references and more than just a stub, though. theatrelover2467 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock vote struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat's substantial sourcing and content improvements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends: Harvest Time Hop and Fly

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

A nothingburger. Found no sources. Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Metacritic shows 5 dedicated reviews including mainstream reliable ones from IGN and the Detroit Free Press. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also these reviews at Gamefaqs. However are any of these reliable sources? Game Vortex perhaps. That gives us 3 reliable sources, which is just scraping alongside notability. Hence my assessment above for the time being.--Coin945 (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im unfamiliar with it personally, but the WikiProjects list of sources (WP:VG/S lists GameDaily as a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "found no sources" claim is not true as there are sources out there for this particular game as pointed out by Sergecross73. The articles/reviews from the Metacritic source are high quality and are suitable for expanding this article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:FAILN. On the Metacritic source the Detroit Free Press link returns an oops! 404 error, and the Deeko review also returns a 404 error. Gamefeed redirects to an engadget search site, leaving only IGN. There is just not enough out there to pass GNG. It is easy to just list sites (all originating from one source) without checking them out. The article is sourced with an "External link" which is against policies and guidelines, and there is just not enough sourcing for notability on a stubby stub let alone anything else. Otr500 (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the links are dead at the moment, doesn't mean they're discounted from notability discussions. We're just discussing if the coverage exists. Metacritic doesn't just make up reviews. They exist, even if you can find it this instant. (Especially the Detroit Free Press, which obviously has physical copies in existence, because, you know, that's how a newspaper works.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to echo the above comments. The fact that some of the sites are dead does not negate them as credible sources; one could also try to find the references through a website archive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coments: I checked and it is not April 1st. Maybe it is a test? I was confused that I am debating policies and guidelines with two editors with a total edit count of over 46,000, and one is an admin. There are tags on the article for "no sources" and "notability" since July 2015 or almost 2 1/2 years. In my short time here I have NEVER read broad community consensus that we should keep an article indefinitly because there "might be sources out there somewhere in the universe", and if someone refbombs dead links we are suppose to either just keep digging, or let the article languish. I mean, crap, notability is not important right?

There is only one policy that can almost over-ride policy, which would be that we can ignore such silly things as policies and guidelines if it improves Wikipedia. Wait! What constitutes "improvements" can be subjective and there is that little thing we call consensus.

There are two "keep" editors ignoring policies and guidelines by what seems to me to be Wikipedia:wikilawyering. Two editors could not find reliable sources and stated thus, so they are branded as liars, and some dead links are pointed to, by these same "keep" editors, that the dead links are still considered reliable because there wasn't enough research done to uncover some correct links.

I have a splendid idea! How about one or both of the two editors, that wants to keep the unsourced stubby-stub, do the legwork instead of trying to pawn it off, and properly source the article. If not then two lowly editors, following the above mentioned policiies and guidelines, and a host of others, still find there is not "enough" to denote notability. "I WP:CHALLENGE all the unsourced content", (and it has been since 2015), and 2 1/2 years is far over any thought-up criteria for a continued article. This is really a content issue but **Y-E-S** a dead link can be discounted from proving notability. If a source can't be checked to verify that there is no original research, or that WP:NPOV is being followed, and that the article does not run afoul of what Wikipedia is not, it simply cannot be verified, and so the subject lacks notability for a stand-alone article.

The entire concept of WP:notability:"This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.", and "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. **WP:NRV :

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.". I did look and find the article lacking. --- Otr500 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, cool it with the hyperbole and walls of texts. My argument was that multiple third party sources covered the game, and that it meets the GNG. That's valid and none if your ranting above changes that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to echo Sergecross73's comment above. There are four reliable sources and the above argument for deleting the article is extremely weak and not based on policy. There is not reason to be rude during the discussion, as it in fact takes away from argument and your professionalism. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Sergecross73 has satisfactorily demonstrated to me that this game has 4 reliable sources. I'm not so convinced it's as cut and dry as I thought it was.--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metacritic =/= reliable source. Most of those don't seem very reliable. I still vote delete for failing WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IGN, Detroit Free Press, and GameDaily are all reliable sources per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an incorrect argument as Metacritic is a reliable source that has been used in several featured articles. Also, Sergecross73's response is correct. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am iffy on the reliability of Metacritic. Often the metascore is based on many unreliable reviews and only one or two reliable ones. Anyone and their mother can make their own review site and get added to Metacritic. I add Metascores to articles because it seems to be Wikipedia policy but it certainly is not indicative of whether the game passes GNG unless the amount of reviews is large._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youre both right. MC is an RS, but not every website they aggregate reviews from is - there's a number of discrepancies between what MC uses and what WP:VG/S deems reliable. But no ones !vote was contingent on all of them being reliable - mine was more based around the fact that multiple very mainstream, not-niche/obscure websites covered it, like IGN and DFP. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep AfDs are only supposed to delete articles on topics that could not be made into articles, due to failing GNG. This article does have reliable sources (The ones listed above), especially the IGN link. It meets GNG, and thus should be kept. It is not a way to force people to work on an article, nor a way to delete articles because it's been badly sourced. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to rename the article can be continued on the article talk page. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Division

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

This group isn't notable enough to claim the moniker Lion Division. Searches show it referring more to any kind of group or organization that involves lions. Compare to 106th Infantry Division (United States) which are known as the Golden Lions. Also 35th Signal Brigade (United States) which is known as Lion Brigade. Also Lions of the East Army in Syria. If this is to be kept, it should be renamed something like Division 3 (Sudan army). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MILUNIT. Probably should rename to 3rd division (South Sudan) (it also goes by "third division" and "division 3" the "lion division" doesn't lead to much, but with the commander name (Maj General Santino Deng Wol) you get to quite a few sources. Some sources: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75].Icewhiz (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Icewhiz. That looks more helpful. The rename is a more specific name, and Lion Division can be used instead for dab purposes. Some of the sources you listed are just name drops though, they don't really go into the specifics of Division 3 other than a passing mention: they exist, have a headquarters or mention of a division leader. participatAngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC) updated 18:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not great sources (I would prefer a balance of forces document, or something covering South Sudan which probably does exist as this is a hot conflict) but they do show this passes WP:V (including UN sanctions on the commanding general noting the formation). Seeing they pass V, I cited MILUNIT which would create a presumption of notability for a division (and even for a brigade or in some cases independent battalions).Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this a division as described in Division (military)? I looked at the first five of Icewhiz (talk · contribs)'s links above (thanks, btw) and they didn't described the unit much.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my limited understanding, yes. It is commanded by a major general and has partcipated in the war(s) in South Sudan. The links above are not great, but they are in English and do show this unit exists. Even if understrength, this would still be a large unit capable on independent action.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This (a better source) - [76] - has them (as "Third Infantry Division") with some 7,000 men. This source mentions some actions - [77].Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the AFD outcome consistent with the discussion so far, including with the consensus that it should be moved, as well, which anyone can do after this AFD is closed. --Doncram (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the discussion to rename the article. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-yahoo-exec-thrilled-to-join-brotherhood-of-church

[2] ttp://www.digitalspy.com/tech/news/a810508/shazam-ceo-also-invented-toolbars-for-internet-browsers/

[3] ttp://www.newcanaannewsonline.com/news/article/Meet-your-neighbor-Rich-Riley-10800722.php

[4] ttp://wbtw.com/2016/09/21/ae-ghost-hunter-ryan-buell-arrested-in-florence-county/

[5] ttp://abc11.com/entertainment/celebrity-ghost-hunter-jailed/1520780/

[6] ttp://www.tvguide.com/news/ryan-buell-cancer-1051833/

[7] ttp://people.com/tv/paranormal-states-ryan-buell-on-cancer-battle-i-had-to-go-to-deaths-door/

[8] ttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-18/entertainment/chi-books-ryan-buell-booksigning_1_paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-interview

[9] ttp://www.eonline.com/news/336791/paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-diagnosed-with-pancreatic-cancer

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]