Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 March	27 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as A10: duplicate of electric razor. I don't know what's up with this AFD (or the edit warring over the A10 tags on the article itself) but the page is gone so let's all just move on with our lives. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious poorly written duplicate of electric razor. Should have remained a CSD as originally designated. Editor did not provide justification for change, or even an explanation at the topic of this AfD page. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. As stated below, pages that use {{wtr}} are technically soft redirects, and should be taken to WP:RFD. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian

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

word not an article Grantbow (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I'm reading Wikipedia:Soft_redirect#Deletion correctly, RfD is the correct venue for this. Adam9007 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Milisavljevic

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Subject never actually played any games for Australia. Simione001 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable soccer player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRAFFIK Advertising

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

Non notable company. Failed WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Promotional article by semi-undeclared (declared on user page, not on article talk page) paid advocate. Primary and non-RSes.

Sidenote: More concerning was the nature of this promotional article. A bit of digging revealed this editor was quite active in such activity in 2014, creating a number of similar articles on companies, many not notable, all promotional and failing NPOV. There was a poor attempt (i.e. incomplete, inadequate, and missing from article talk pages) at making a paid-advocacy declaration however it falls far short of what we'd expect. I will be going through this editor's work armed with TNT and AfD in the coming days but feel free to do so sooner. Rayman60 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A firm going about its business. The listed awards are not notable in themselves and my searches are not finding substantial coverage about the firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Daniel

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

Non-notable person and poorly cited article { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable singer which doesn't meet any of the criteria set out at WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.. Wes Mouse ^Talk 20:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: Please could you merge Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando Daniel (2nd nomination) (and my deletion rationale !vote) into this, as both myself and Jjj1238 nominated the article at the exact same time. Wes Mouse ^Talk 21:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the 2nd nomination into a redirect to this nomination. Wes Mouse's deletion rationale (the sole comment in the 2nd nomination) is already included here (see his "delete" recommendation above). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one sources in not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early to create article.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Pedigo

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG. The article consists of only non-indepedendent sources or ones that trivially mention the subject. A WP:BEFORE search found sources such as ^[1] is probably not WP:RS. This means the article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not meet the WP:GNG; and it is WP:TAINTED.Burning Pillar (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and reliable sources found to verify the claims. Fails WP:N. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.thenewyorkoptimist.com/SaraPedigo_Jan28_2014.html

Delete. Of only local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Despite the low level of participation, I just about see consensus, as the one "weak keep" comment has to be taken as very weak, since the linked sources are minimal, and it is an exaggeration to say that "he" was nominated for a Grammy: a record on which he had worked was nominated, and a mere nomination not of oneself but of something one is connected to is really not evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D.R.U.G.S Beats

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep: Per [2] and [3]. He was also nominated for a Grammy. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 20:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake (album)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article already cites Allmusic and Pitchfork reviews, and there's another from PopMatters. Good enough. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reviews. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Dahiya

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

Unprodded with a memorial rationale. However, it does not pass WP:GNG, being a case of WP:BLP1E. And nothing in the article indicates he passes WP:SOLDIER. Should be deleted as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No evidence that he passes WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian Army officer who was killed in action, please do not delete itSomrajsistece (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article shows anything noteworthy to make a stand-alone article, dying from combat injuries doesnt make you notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Rising (musical)

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

Does not appear to have had a full production, so likely isn't notable. Article just details a few readings which are a normal part of any show's development but have no notabilty (even through some of the participating performers are notable). Boneymau (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage by both playbill and Broadwayworld and is well referenced for a stubMark E (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolpad Catalyst

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

See product notability guidelines. If the company has its own article, and it does, normally the products can be covered in the company article. This article reads like a spec sheet. Google search does not show anything justifying a separate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Matthew_hk t c 05:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Caria

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable low level hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7. Sandstein 12:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MayMay Entrata

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

My conversion of this to a redirect was undone, so I thought I should take it to AFD. Anyway, she's a teenage Big Brother contestant with no independent notability, so this should be a redirect to the contestant list, like other names of contestants are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as we usually do with reality contestants to Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MayMay Entrata will star her first TV acting project, an episode in Maalaala Mo Kaya which will feature her own story. MayMay is also is undergoing a workshop class in preparation for her future projects with ABS-CBN.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough roles to yet be a notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelumbo (film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The external link provided is to a Chinese mining company. Jupitus Smart 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep is not an option. Not just by weight of numbers, but because the sources brought up here are just passing mentions. We're looking for sources which are primarially about the subject (or, at least, devote a serious amount of attention to them). Simply mentioning that something exists isn't enough.

It would be attractive to close this as Redirect to Chess engine (especially as I'm a big fan of WP:ATD) but that article doesn't even mention this program, so the redirect wouldn't make a lot of sense. That specific objection could be solved by adding it to Chess engine, but then why this one specific engine, and not others?

I suspect the best long-term solution would be for somebody to write List of chess engines and then this (and all of the other engines which don't merit their own articles) could redirect to there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andscacs

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

This looks like a non-notable nothing to me. However, I acknowledge I know zilch about chess engines. Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Definitely a notable chess engine, which ranks the seventh strongest at CCRL, other citations are available under the reference section of the article. IQ125 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source that might meet the requirements of WP:GNG (and I have my doubts when it comes to the "independent of the subject" requirement – it sounds like a press release rather than original reporting) is ref. 3. Given that "multiple sources are generally expected" by GNG, that's not enough. Noncommercial, closed-source engines without notable competitive results are not notable. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with ref. 4? Did you even read it? IQ125 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a wiki, therefore it fails WP:RS because it is user generated content.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a very reliable website, I trust the information from that website location. IQ125 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because you said so doesn't make it so. Please stop reverting other editors' attempts to clean up the article to conform with Wikipedia policies. Cobblet (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chess engine. This source from January of this year says the three strongest engines are Stockfish 8, Komodo 10.3 and Houdini 5.01, with a "few others worth mentioning beyond these top three" and then lists Andscas as one of "a slew of less heralded entries." Is being the seventh strongest on one of several (reputable) testing groups enough to establish notability? There are no guidelines on notability of chess engines at WP:CHESS as far as I'm aware. This source and the one mentioned above by Cobblet are all I can find that are reliable and I agree with him that this is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. For now I suggest redirecting to Chess engine and the article can be re-created in the future if more sources turn up.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Redirect. It's one of the stronger engines around and the material is properly sourced. Within the chess programming world it is probably considered notable. Redirect would be ok too per Pawnkingthree, the material would be preserved and if Andscacs continues to make progress and joins the big 3 we could easily recreate the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bits and pieces can be moved into chess engine. Not notable on its own. South Nashua (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Here's another source from December about the Thoresen Chess Engine Championship: TCEC: el otro campeonato del mundo de ajedrez que ningún humano podría ganar - INVDES" (TCEC: the other world chess championship that no human could win). It mentions Andscacs along with 7 other engines: "Today different versions of Komodo, Stockfish and Houdini dominate those qualifications, although contenders like Fire, Jony, Gull, Rybka or Andscacs managed to arrive at the third stage before the superfinal". Mojoworker (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to chess engine. No notability has been established via community vetted reliable sources, though it may be possible to merge some information from the source provided earlier in this AFD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Singh Minhas

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources which addresses the topic directly and in details to support WP:GNG and no indication of passing WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. The article was created by a sockpuppet of Abhishek4889. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage of this actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwaroopMM

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

Unremarkable technical festival organised by non-notable group from Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur, Ambala. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.

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

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

The result was redirect to The Latin American Xchange. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ortiz (wrestler)

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

Yet another example of Adam9007 removing CSD tags with a poor explanation. Article is poorly sourced and wrestler is non-notable. I tried finding reliable sources and found zero, zilch, nada. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current holder of the TNA World Tag Team Championship, definitely passes GNG. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch with proper format and sourcing. Same goes for his partner Santana (pro wrestler). Dannys-777 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - If you could find a reliable source to back up your claim, I would agree with you, however, I have yet to find one, hence it's nomination. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Guess you weren't looking too hard. Dannys-777 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is more of a question of if he is independently notable of his tag team with Santana or if they as a duo are even independently notable of The Latin American Xchange. Right now I'm leaning towards a redirect to The Latin American Xchange unless significant coverage of the individual exists. More research to do... Nikki♥311 04:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with a redirect until more info is available, I already redirected the article for their tag-team which was created by the same user and was a similar unsourced mess. This article is in the wrong namespace anyway, as is Santana's. Dannys-777 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Nikki in that a merge might be the best option, as there is no real significant coverage outside of the tag team. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to The Latin American Xchange. Making it official from my comment above. Santana and Ortiz aren't independently notable. Nikki♥311 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Latin American Xchange. Usually we see non-notable tag teams with notable members come to AfD, this is a case where the team is notable but individual members are not. We recently discussed The Young Bucks and The Usos being split on WT:PW and decided against it, this is the same idea.LM2000 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hennig (wrestler)

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WLW Ladies Championship which Hennig won. Huon (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or redirect to Curt Hennig#Personal life. Not notable in her own right. Nikki♥311 02:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like people are not convinced by the references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrikke (Singer)

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

Article is poorly cited. Singer also fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Wes Mouse ^Talk 16:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can't understand why you say it's poorly cited. When there is no much information to cite as she is an emergent singer. I have added references that prove from she is, shows in which she has participated, also her website is there for you to check. What I have written comes from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha kam ash (talk • contribs) 6:12 pm, Today (UTC+1) (UTC)

@Ha kam ash: Basic criteria for notability on people does state that "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". None of the sources verifying the content which you have placed the citations next to. The early life section has no citations, and when writing articles on living people, Wikipedia has strict policies which we must be adhere to, and you have not followed any of the WP:BLP guidelines. Taking part in a national selection for Eurovision does not guarantee notability. Wes Mouse ^Talk 17:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Simply WP:TOOSOON in the artists career for her to be notable enough for her own wikipedia page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical methods

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

Solution in search of a problem. The only usage I found (now reverted) was basically to the phrase "methods using mathematics" (and in three of the four cases, were on pages on the dab itself) In other words, a bad dab. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Isn't this AFD a solution in search of a problem? The term "mathematical methods" is very broad; it makes sense to allow any readers searching on such a broad term to find their way to articles about mathematical methods in three big areas (physics, electronics, economics). There is no way in which this disambiguation page hurts anything, and it does help. In general, disambiguation pages are supporting pages, like redirects, that are "cheap" and helpful. --do ncr am 17:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be converted to a broad concept article (which would naturally link to the physics, electronics, economics articles), but no editor is barred from doing that by the disambiguation page existing. It should not be deleted. --do ncr am 17:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title is often used for books or university courses. It's a broad concept which might usefully link to many other articles including applied mathematics, mathematical analysis, numerical analysis and quantitative research. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a widely used term and the page is sensibly and usefully constructed. It can certainly be improved, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless redirect. Vague, overbroad, with nothing linking to it, serving no purpose for disambiguation. The fact that "mathematical methods" *might* mean something useful, used as a justification by the !keep comments above, does not mean that what we have here actually *is* useful. Created by notorious creator-of-useless-redirects Fmadd. Nuke it. No prejudice against creating a different article with the title "mathematical methods" if someone finds a specific topic by that name to write about, or if there is something less vague and general than mathematics, mathematical physics, etc. to link to in a redirect page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAMELIST as two of the entries on the WP:DAB page are only partial entries and the third is a subset of the disambiguation article's scope. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and KAP03. older ≠ wiser 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have added more entries which seem reasonably close in meaning or wording. The nay-saying above is now obsolete. Andrew D. (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, still looks like nothing more than a bunch of partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Bkonrad, this still does not do anything to help disambiguate the nonexistent incoming wikilinks to mathematical methods. And I would argue that any article that does try to attach a link to the phrase "mathematical methods", shouldn't — it will always be mathematical methods in some particular topic, and the topic should be included in the wikilink. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of links is complicated by the plural form as it is our convention to prefer singular titles which doesn't work so well in this case. Anyway, the point at issue here is whether deletion is appropriate. If deleted it would return to being an unsatisfied redlink in pages like this. My view remains that the page is best retained for further development. Maybe it could be developed into a broad concept article using sources like Newton on Mathematical Method. The worst case would be redirection to a list or category such as list of mathematics-based methods. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: It will not be an unsatisfied redlink, because there are no incoming links to it from article space (and there should not be any links in future, because it's too vague a term to support a link by itself). That was, in a nutshell, the problem with all of Fmadd's contributions: they consisted of adding inappropriate wikilinks and then creating bad disambiguation pages for them. The user-space list you link to in your comment is owned by a long-defunct bot and was last updated in 2007, so it has little relevance for the current state of Wikipedia. What is the justification for holding dearly to the damage he created as if it was useful content? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the page titles and redirects created by Fmadd and, as they mostly seem quite sensible, like this one, the mistreatment of this good-faith editor seems contrary to WP:BITE. My position is unchanged; the page in question has merit and there are sensible alternatives which we should prefer before deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- seems like it does violate WP:NAMELIST, but could be useful to people if they happen to try to search "mathematical methods"Porphyro (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: way too vague to be really useful in any non-contrived scenario. That's what search functions are for; WP:PTM. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too wide-ranging in its scope to be of any use. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiphase

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

Solution looking for a problem. Similar to thermomagnetic, "multiphase" is an partial-title match and thus not a valid dab. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least two major contexts for this – multiphase flow and multiphase power. There are other synonyms around too like polyphase and so readers may need help in finding their way. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - another sensible and useful dab page. No reason to delete any of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless station

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

Dab was made with good intentions, but largely falls flat of the mark. In all existing usage, there is no way for the user to tell which type of wireless station is being made (if it were, it would be more properly piped). No sense in confusing the reader. Ultimately, a bad dab. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content seems reasonable and I'm not understanding the nomination. The point of a dab is to provide the reader with a selection of reasonable alternatives for an ambiguous title. This page seems to do that just fine. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If understand "which type of wireless station is being made", the objection is simply that the disambig page is sufficiently unclear as to the topics linked. Then fix the problems and improve the descriptions. I'm tempted to say Speedy keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - another sensible and useful dab page, an obvious keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disambiguation page/Set index that may need slight improvement but still fills a potential requirement. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1 (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless tower

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

A solution looking for a problem. No incoming links, the outgoing links are all quite distinct (but no "primary" place to redirect). Bad dab. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I drove past the Stokenchurch BT Tower yesterday, marvelling at its positioning on top of the Chilterns so that it has a line of sight to both London and the Oxford plain. That's a telecommunication tower and there are variety of such towers used for wireless broadcasting and communication. The phrase in question is used to describe them in numerous sources and so it is appropriate that it should be a blue link. For example, the Congressional record says "In July 1976 a tablet was unveiled at Shoreham, Long Island, on the site where Tesla's wireless tower used to stand." Our article for that is entitled Wardenclyffe Tower and so readers may naturally need some help in finding it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, a sensible and helpful dab page. In general pages like this should not be brought to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very obvious navigational need for disambiguation, or arguably a set index. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This set index/DAB page serves a useful purpose. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. as A7 by Deb (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 17:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzaib Chadhar

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

Self-promotional without verifiable merit. The website upon which he bases his notability is a broken link. A google search returns a wordpress site with a similar name, without significant traffic. A CSD tag was apparently placed by another user simultaneously to my own AfD, which is acceptable as well. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Fed Cup Junior

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

Fails WP:TENNIS. Junior tournaments are non-notable unless they are Grand Slams. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom above and aforementioned WP:TENNIS guideline. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does seem rather frivolous. The Jr Fed Cup and Jr Davis Cup events are rarely mentioned in any main-stream press except by a mention of the winners. We actually have an article, Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup, to list those child winners (and runners-up). To have yearly articles of draws, scores, pools, country standings, etc... is way over the top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. It's not notable individually, but it's a plausible search term and should be redirected to the parent article per WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Fed Cup Junior

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

Fails WP:TENNIS as a non-notable event. Junior events are not notable unless they are Grand Slams, which this isn't. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does seem rather frivolous. The Jr Fed Cup and Jr Davis Cup events are rarely mentioned in any main-stream press except by a mention of the winners. We actually have an article, Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup, to list those child winners (and runners-up). To have yearly articles of draws, scores, pools, country standings, etc... is way over the top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. It's not notable by itself, but it's a plausible search term and should be redirected per WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joharul Alam

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Originally BLP PRODed, and that was removed when a reference that failed verification for the fact it was cited for. Appears to have no sources that talk about this individual, though some minor mentions do pop up, but those appear to be for different people. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after checking notability and nothing substantial to add reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty close to WP:A7 based on English resources. If Bangla references exist to substantiate, they are not easily accessible. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find significant sources on him or company (RR Group) in English. If there are Bengali sources - they need to be referenced in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Vásquez

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

There are no independent sources linked in this article. The publications are all linked to the website of the think tank he works for. Google turns up only Cato publications and occasional namechecks. As far as I can see, the sum total claim to notability appears to be that he was on C-span once. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It does not seem like there is notability based on what I see in English language pages. I am not quite sure how important the directorship is that is currently claimed in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Works for a conservative lobbyist group, generally fails to meet WP:NRV. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descha Muchtar

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

Unable to find reliable reference to indicate connection with Dewi Rezer, and no actual references beyond Instagram. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from Dewi Rezer. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. All the citations are to instagram. Alephb (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Nevé –selbert 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bone (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:3DABS, this is an utterly pointless disambiguation page. The hatnote here (now removed) at Ken Bone satisfied the ambiguity just fine. --Nevé –selbert 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly reasonable disambiguation page, all 3 subjects are notable except one has his article merged with the 2016 presidential election due to him becoming notable because of this, and the other has a slightly different name. Passes WP:3DABS AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The necessity for such a disambiguation page is thin, given that Ken Bone's hatnote was more than capable of handling three topics without clutter.--Nevé –selbert 14:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:3DABS actually recommend the opposite of what is proposed here. If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page) Er, the hatnote was only 25 words or 164 characters.--Nevé –selbert 14:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's well over two and a half lines on my display. The hatnote probably should be even shorter; a simple {{other persons}} would be sufficient. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, this is a perfectly reasonable dab page. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh. "Ken Bone" can only refer to two people on Wikipedia, but the dab page is harmless nonetheless. For the record, I've never seen WP:3DABS used to justify deletion of a dab page before. I guess there's a first for everything... -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all comments above. Otherwise the hatnote gets too lengthy. Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of law and policy

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

We don't accept articles on university "programs" without real evidence of that program's notability. KDS4444 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP (products). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability.Glendoremus (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a new phrase to describe a unique program at one small university. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as author requested speedy by blanking the page. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Magicland

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

PROD declined by creator (I assume) - the book does exist but no evidence of notability, would be clear grounds for speedy deletion if that criterion applied to books : Noyster (talk), 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok since both speedy and prod were declined, it does not meet WP:notability. Point to be noted is that the page had been deleted twice before under different csd reasons^[1] yet the same user has recreated the page each time. I had requested csd under A3 and G3. Strangely, rejection mentions A7 but no mention of A3 or G3. So here it comes - Should be deleted as page has no content. Also by the repeated re creation of article, I am suspecting the author has a COI with the topic ^{[original research?]}. Moreover, the same article was declined twice at AfC^[2].Excrepts from the rejection -
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.^[3]

and

In order to qualify for an article on Wikipedia a topic must show that they have been discussed, in depth, in multiple independent sources that have a history of editorial oversight and fact checking. We are looking for discussion in well known newspapers or magazines. That material should be summarized, in your own words, and referenced.^[3]

Yashovardhan (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Just to explain to Yashovardhan that speedy deletion criteria WP:A3 and WP:G3 didn't appear to me to apply: the article had content, it was about a real verifiable (though totally non-notable) book. By declining speedy before an admin did I was simply moving the process along: Noyster (talk), 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: Oh, ok! Didn't realize it was you who had declined the request. At least this AfD will help! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a self-published (PoD) book with no independent sourecs, and no sign of notability per WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this book is notable. It exists and can be purchased, but neither of those things give notability. On the talk page the article's creator says that the author is a minor, but that doesn't give notability either. I couldn't find any coverage for this book, not even using the India WP's search engine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not make case for book notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update:Speedy Delete - seems like the author is no longer interested. Author has blanked the page. I nominated it for csd. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to HK Express. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HKE

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

HKE is a non-notable music producer who just so happened to create semi-notable projects such as 2814; notability is Not Inherited Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 13:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then re-create redirect to Hong Kong Express Airways. This is a long-term redirect, which Eleventhblock has been WP:EDITWARRING, twice reverting the redirect to this. Eleventhblock, please be aware you are close to WP:3RR and could be blocked for edit warring. You have not demonstrated how he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG and when I looked for sources, I couldn't establish that he was notable either. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then restore redirect to Hong Kong Express Airways. The artist is not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Moreover, as pointed out above, notability isn't inherited. Hong Kong Express Airways is certainly the correct target for a redirect. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Okhotin

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

Refs consist mostly of primary sources written by the subject himself or that do not discuss the subject in anything more than trivial details. No substantive coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to be found. Being a full professor does not qualify the subject under WP:ACADEMIC without holding a named chair. KDS4444 (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to have carved out a niche for himself in certain problems involving the expressive power of different sets of operations, allowing him to write many papers that are superficially indistinguishable but actually have tiny differences in exactly which operations are allowed and not allowed or in whether the operands are described as, say, integers vs unary strings (compare, for instance, the nearly-simultaneously-published journal papers, with different co-authors, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2012.01.004 and doi:10.1007/s00224-011-9352-5). This has given him enough publications for a successful academic career but his impact has been too limited (too low citation count) to pass WP:PROF#C1. And when one looks more carefully at the actual citations of some of his better-cited papers (e.g. [4], a 2010 paper listed as having 56 citations by Google Scholar) one sees self-citation after self-citation, with only single-digit citations from others, so the case looks even weaker. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eppstein's analysis of citations. I would have been fooled if it weren't for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Haiti relations

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

References here are to what I am coming to believe are a kind of backwards notability: "I have an idea, I can make a case for its notability if I phrase it right, here is my article even though the subject is tenuous." We could have articles covering every aspect of international relations between every nation that has ever existed, but the notability of each "relationship" would depend entirely on personal perspective, not on any meaningful external "notability" (Fiji— Cameroon relations, "Byzantine— Aragon relations", "Welsh— Imperial Russian relations", "Navajo— Turkish relations", etc.). KDS4444 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither country has resident ambassadors, nor any evidence of agreements. the Greek foreign ministry claimed it provide assistance to Haiti for the earthquake but I can't find example of specific assistance, which was all via the EU. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the relations between these two countries meet any kind of notability guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Metrobus

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

No indication of notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG. There are also no sources available and is quite poorly written. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nördic Nightfury 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even ignoring sockpuppetry/WP:SPA issues, the arguments offered by !keep votes do not show evidence of how WP:N is met; there is more to that than "it's notable!" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Smith (Esperantist)

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

PROD removed by primary author. There is no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG. No independent sources have been produced. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The mention of him in Esther Schor's book seems a reasonable independent source, and this one too[5]. However as these sources are not "about" him but only mention him in passing I think it is not enough to pass GNG.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Chuck Smith is unquestionably accomplished and notable. When Wikipedia still contains lengthy articles on trivial video games, athletes of bygone days and untalented musicians, this article deserves to be retained and developed. Smith's achievements are noteworthy enough that versions of this article also exist in other languages. Please do not delete this article. Objectivesea (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will get a better result by articulating your argument in terms of wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policy, for example, explicitly states that the existence of other articles of low quality or questionable notability is not a valid argument that an unrelated article should be kept. Notability is determined by non-trivial coverage in third party sources, so providing some of those would be a more fruitful avenue of argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This borders too close on self referential. Founders of specific language Wikipedias are not notable for such. Beyond this the mentions of him in reliable sources are not indepth enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Chuck Smith is a prominent Esperantist, named "Esperantist of the Year" I think in 2015. An entry already exists; it is not a frivolous contribution about an obscure, insignificant person in the Esperanto world. And Wikipedia is not bound by the cost of printer, ink, and the physical size of an Encyclopedia. Perhaps someone can offer more references, but by all means keep this entry. Don't be trifling.Ralfelektulo (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Ralfelektulo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep Chuck Smith is main contributor of a Duolingo course, founder of a Wikipedia language, organizer of Polyglot Gathering. BertSchumann 01:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)— BertSchumann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep Chuck Smith is an important person. He accomplished many things for the internet-side of the Esperanto speaking community. Founded Wikipedia in Esperanto, main contributer for the English-Esperanto Duolingo course etc. 143.179.83.4 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)— 143.179.83.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete GNG not met. As a side note, ridiculous sock-puppetry is not indicative of a good-faith editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Vidales

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even doesn't enter any of the professional racing championships. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a 15-year-old driver who is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable racing driver.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Taoufik

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even doesn't enter any of the professional racing championships. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 15-year-old motorsport driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only coverage I could find was trivial mentions in articles that reported the races. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable racing driver.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be editorially created. Sandstein 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One drivers from other nations

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

Fails GNG. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Only reference in the entire article is one that establishes Tomas Enge as a Grand Prix driver. It is not relevant to this article. There is nothing anywhere that indicates an article by this topic has any notability at all. There is no explanation of the notability of the countries, indeed the title of the article lacks crucial specificity. "Other nations". Other than what? It is a collection of trivia under a heading that cannot even identify itself. Falcadore (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two convoluted, artificial and unrelated criteria that also have nothing to do with "other nations". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Formula One drivers#By country which presents a table of all countries whose citizens have entered Formula One races, including the first to do so for each country which automatically indicates the only one for countries which only have had one Formula One driver. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a redirect is who's going to type in this odd title? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Other" countries assumes a "primary" country. Formula One is international, so the existence of this article is illogical.Jacona (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously part of a set of pages – Formula One drivers from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, &c. It makes little sense to consider this in isolation. The worst case would be to rename to make it clearer that it's part of a set like List of aircraft (C-Cc). Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no logical connection between the Rhodesia representatives and the only representatives. The fact that Rhodesia is Zimbabwe today doesn't mean that their drivers are the "other nation".Corvus tristis (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ELAN software

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

Lacks any third party sources to show notability. Sloetjes is an employee of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. It's an advert, very classily dressed up with doi ref, but an article lacking independent third-party sources all the same. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GrryT's addition of independent sources overcomes my problems with the article. Cabayi (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than WP:ITEXISTS I don't see anything that shows notatility even with the reliable source issues. - Pmedema (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pmedema for looking at the article. Can you please elaborate your view? IMHO, there is no doubt that ELAN fulfills the notability requirements as it is a well-established software. As requested, I also added now a number of other sources. GrryT (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ELAN is a relevant piece of software in qualitative data analysis and particularly in interpretation of language (signs/gestures). It is not an advert and the references used were suited best to the article. After the deletion flag was there, I immediately asked the question what the problem is, because there were external references and I did not get an answer to my question. Only now, in the description by Cabayi, he describes that Sloetjes is an employee and that's the problem. It would have been very helpful if someone had given this information earlier! I will add more sources now and I hope that this is sufficient. I find the way of communicating quite disencouraging and IMHO also quite disrespectful of the author to add a deletion flag 8 minutes after the creation of an article (while I was still editing the article). Why did the first moderator not just add the flag/information that the article is lacking third-party sources and that the author should add it? This would have been absolutely sufficient. Overall, I find peer-reviewing of new articles very helpful and I would like to express my gratitude that you actually do it. I just found the way how it was done quite unfortunate. GrryT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added now a number of external references to the article. I hope this sufficient to fulfill the requirements and to show notability. GrryT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some further additions to external links (ELAN manuals). Could you please tell me how and when the AfD can be closed? Thanks. GrryT (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a week. WP:AFD tells all. Cabayi (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- FYI, I added even some more external references. I am now very happy with the article. I hope you, too. GrryT (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this the same ELAN software here [6] that won an award? If so than put that in and I would consider it notable but as it stands a number of the references are 'mentions in passing', there are a number that come from the same source and a number that I guess I'd have to go to a library because they don't have URL links that can be checked out. I still feel the article is, "this is what it can do" but nothing that says, "this is why I'm notable" - Pmedema (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pmedema for your comment. The ELAN software which you link to is something entirely different. The ELAN software of the wiki article is a well established research software which is used in a large number of disciplines. That's why I added the references and the third-party additions to ELAN to show that this really is a notable piece of software. How else can I show that it is notable? Please tell what else you expect? I mean if you open, for example, the Pubmed citation index for studies that used ELAN you instantly find dozens of them. GrryT (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has it won an award? Are there many reviews about it specifically by notable 3rd party publications? - Pmedema (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are dozens of manuals by third parties and dozens of academic articles that used ELAN, but I am not aware of any award. But please keep in mind that awards for academic software are not really common. I search the internet to add some more third party information and reviews. GrryT (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope that it is fine now after adding requested type of 3rd party references. GrryT (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sad reality is that academic software, and open-source software, both, even when widely used, usually receive far less attention, such as reviews and awards, than more commercial forms of software. This contributes to some unfair systemic bias resulting from Wikipedia's standards and practices for determining notability in covering software. Given Wikipedia's current methods, this bias cannot be avoided or reduced. Software which is academic, and open-source, as is Elan, suffers from both sources of inattention. -- Jerryobject (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have plenty of references now. (As an aside, it is a pity they have been entered manually rather than using templates such as {{cite}}, but while that is unfortunate, it is irrelevant to the question of deletion.) SJK (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Clinic Ltd.

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

WP:PROMO article. Claim to fame is that the owner gave 1-2 sentence quotes to major Canadian papers about selfie sticks when they first came out. No substantial coverage as needed by WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is still growing. Wikipedia isn't an exclusive, closed off site. We only created it 5 hours ago. I will be able to contact the man leading the company for more information as well as PDFs of articles in print newspapers, and things will follow. What harm can this article do to have to put it up for deletion? Jkmarold55 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The harm is that it does not meet our notability criteria, appears to be promotional and was deleted as such as a draft earlier, and the fact that you refer to we which suggests you are working with the subject to create the page. All of these undermine the credibility of Wikipedia, especially the promotional component. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, I deleted the draft because I was stupid and thought that in order to publish it, I had to create a new Wikipedia page that was live. Thanks. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bludgeon the conversation, but that is simply not true. DGG tagged it as purely promotional and SeraphimBlade deleted it under CSD G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony, I forgot. I moved the draft over to a new page after they abruptly deleted it. I thought I had to publish it. What platform deletes drafts before they are finished? Drafts don't cause any problems. I thought I could actually finish it on a live post, and I wasn't allowed to on a draft, or something. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for free advertising for two stores/15 employees in British Columbia. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional, nor do we intend it to be. I have no affiliation with the company whatsoever, and I was creating the page with a friend of mine, not the company. My friend is a lot more knowledgeable about Wikipedia techniques than I am. If this was free advertising, we would be flaunting it on websites, featured pages, etc. Rather, the only people who are going to visit are those interested in the company. Wikipedia is an ever expanding database of information, and I don't think growing companies should be excluded. Its inclusion does not cause any harm whatsoever. I don't think that Wikipedia suffers from more inclusion of small businesses; rather, I believe it helps it grow. Whether or not it's well known or not, we still have more content than the Moe's Southwest Grill page. Let me know what you think. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. Would you expect to see this in Encyclopedia Britannica? Of course not. Why would you think it's appropriate here? The comparison to the 600-location Moe's Southwest Grill is head-scratching. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. A 600 location Wikipedia page gets little attention or improvement, yet us little guys barely have a chance to grow or establish notability. Wikipedia is notoriously different from resources such as the Encycopedia Britannica. You won't find company descriptions and individual person bios (of people who aren't internationally famous) in it. They aren't even of the same class. Can't be compared. Respectfully, Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just condemned the article out of your own mouth. Wikipedia is not for entities to "grow or establish notability". It's for those that already have it. You've also established that you have a WP:conflict of interest ("us little guys"). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest. I don't know these people. I just speak in first person plural. Jkmarold55 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT. Article fails to establish notability and is nothing more than a business listing. Articles about "local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." CBS527^Talk 10:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Kerrowmoar. Sandstein 17:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrowmoar

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

I do not see how and why this one turn (turn? the article doesn't even say) is notable enough to have its own article. The sourcing doesn't bear it out--these are sources that name everything on the circuit (cause they're basically maps and histories of the race), and the one newspaper article is local and apparently verifies only that once upon a time the road was widened. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I essentially agree, but the phrase "this one turn" suggests that none of the others do, where in fact, almost every part of this course has its own article:

If this article is going to be deleted, then a whole load of those others should be similarly considered. Harrias ^talk 14:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm an old person, Harrias, and by necessity must take baby steps... I didn't mean "this one turn" as opposed to the others, BTW. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The Kerromoar section comprises a left, right and left" - extract from 4/5 paragraphs covering the Kerromoar section (TT Racing, Ray Knight, 1974)
Redirect (to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course) Following on from above, this article provides nothing of substance that can't be included in List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, which is basically where most of that template above should already solely reside. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an involved editor I would like to offer some guidance. The options are:

Keep
Delete outright (from the public view)
Merge with another (physically nearby) article Ginger Hall – thereby retaining access to archived history, content, and references as may be required - see example at Bedstead Corner and The Nook, Isle of Man
Redirect to List article – thereby retaining access to archived history, content, and references as may be required and also facilitates future re-instatement.
For the avoidance of doubt, editor Harrias may wish to reconsider and clarify/change their !vote already stated with a ~~strikethrough~~. I am undecided, and I may not !vote.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Kerrowmoar ). I agree that there's nothing specifically about this place in its article, besides the mention of the Manx language meaning of its name ("from Manx: The Great Quarterland", with source), which could/should actually be copied over. Keeping the article history in place is better than deleting, in my opinion, a) s a courtesy to contributors, b) to allow for article re-development if some big event happens there and/or a lot of well-sourced content shows up, and c) to inform future AFDs about other named corners and other discussions. --do ncr am 03:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Talk-page of the list-article has this current discussion with suggestions of other marginal articles to AFD, perhaps in a small batch multi-AFD after this AFD closes? --do ncr am 03:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing row in List article (I didn't write it). This area is countryside with no significant residential settlement. A series of minor articles was historically established by one or two editors, with the suggested Manx-Gaelic language 'translations' (or interpretations) prominently displayed (this one-article-per-turn, taken together, is touching on WP:NOTGUIDE). Although of mild-interest, emphasis should not be placed on the alleged historical etymology - there are various derivative-spellings throughout the island. Kerrow Moar is shown as Keroo Mooar on the 1986 track side marker board (at 19 minutes); the work cited as 1970 was first-published 1925 and the acclaimed scholar/author John Kneen#Manx Language died in 1938.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Khodarahmi

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

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject. Its two sentences also have errors in the use of "actors" for a single individual and "He" for a subject whose picture appears to be that of a female. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources available, and fails WP:NACTOR as (s)he has had only small roles in little-known TV shows and films.
Quasar G ^{t - c} 20:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to be notable in Iran(pages like this one suggest notability too). Her visibility in the West appears to be limited to "A Man Who Ate His Cherries" (Mardi ke Gilashayash ra Khord), which according to the Holliwood Reporter is "a beautifully shot film that's appealing in its ordinariness". 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A and A

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

I found no coverage for this computer virus. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is coverage (in the external links section) but it is only trivial. This virus is no different to any of the thousands of run-of-the-mill computer viruses, and, being so old, it is unlikely it will become notable. Quasar G ^{t - c} 20:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostory (video game)

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

Unnotable, most of the sources aren't RS (company's own FB, twitter, steam etc, not RS) Google news returns nothing of usefulness. L3X1 (distant write) 03:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, advert. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources would we need to add in order for this to be classified as "notable"? (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

What are the major game-reviewing websites? Have they reviewed this game, or are they going to do so? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any reviews for the game, though I don't know if anyone has any plans to review it. If we were to delete the page now, would it be possible to bring it back once there are sources and such? Because if we could do that, it may be the best route for now. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Chocolatejr9: That is always an option. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the WP:VG/RS search pulls up nothing, indicating a lack of notability in third party reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Malki Group

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

unnotable, promo L3X1 (distant write) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo article on an unremarkable private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to Jewish Cuba

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This review is a great source, but I was unable to find anything else. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Rangers

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

Procedural nomination per discussion here. Non-notable rugby league team which should either be deleted outright or redirected to the historic club Broughton Rangers. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They play at a high standard in the amateur game, play at a Manchester City facility and are making noises about aiming for the professional game. Article should make use of the sources available rather than have someone put it up for deletion.Fleets (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – We have plenty of amateur club articles already and this one rightly or wrongly gets a lot of press for it's association with foundation club Broughton. Skemcraig (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability is not inhereted, nor is it established by what might happen in the future. Reliable sources needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An amateur club that appears to play in tier 6 of the British rugby league system, however I am unclear about this as the article is woefully lacking sources. The fact that the club has "ambition" is not relevant. At this stage, the club seems to be worth a sentence or two in the Broughton Rangers page and no more. Mattlore (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a amateur club; no sources listed nor found to establish notability. What sources are there are local; not enough to meet WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Broughton Rangers. Notability is not inherited, but it's a useful and plausible redirect to a page where it is mentioned. Votes to delete outright rather than redirect are not based in policy and those voters should review WP:ATD. Smartyllama (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Poorly sourced article about a low level amateur sports club. I do not agree that their own unsubstantiated claims of being a "successor" to a former club entitles them to a mention at the former club's page. Reyk _YO! 14:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticketbleed

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

Not notable. Fails WP:BASIC. Information is already supplied in the CVE database in much greater detail. Why does it need an entry in Wikipedia?

Are we going to have an new entry in Wikipedia every time an entry in the CVE database appears, effectively synchronizing to the two db's. No, we're not. I don't think it is notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virginia Commonwealth University. And merge from history at editorial discretion. Sandstein 17:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VCU expansion

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

This article is just an addendum to an general university article. This article strikes me as a list to promote VCU, which seems like it's content forking. Nominating for deletion on the grounds of WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:CFORK. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virginia Commonwealth University p b p 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and Merge to Virginia Commonwealth University, College campuses expand sometimes on a yearly basis. I drive past a college campus on my way to work and they have been doing different construction projects for a few years now. The expansion does not warrant a stand-alone article, though it would be worth noting major construction projects, like any new or upgrades of athletic facilities, new dorms, or new class buildings, in the school page.--Rockchalk717 05:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Pbp89 suggests. Delete as a second choice. Blythwood (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotionalism and spam that we wouldn't want in the main article. This is something you would hand to a donor who you want to name a building, and the minutia in it in terms of expansion would overwhelm the main article, even if done selectively. The fact that a university campus is growing is not out of the norm-- thats what they do to stay relevant and to get donors to give money. If the expansion is really notable it can be covered with 1-2 sentences that are referenced in the main article. No need for a merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett M Pruitt

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

Non notable musician. 2 sources, one of which says "he is a household name" yet NO news articles for him exist on Google. And I'm pretty sure this slots in under CA7M, but oh well. I'm beginning to hate A7, as it never is accepted. The articles get deleted anyway, to it wastes my time. grumble grumble L3X1 (distant write) 03:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

its says he si s a rising name in chicago.

he has played at Buddy Guys Legends, House of blues, Jarrett has toured with numerous band as as stage hand /GuitarTech. he is know a musician/entrepreneur Wikipedia was just lauching while we was touring with bands like revis earth wind & fire jethro tull Steve winwood

lately He has been working with Academy Award Winning Rapper crunchy Black from Three 6 Mafia His picture is on there record label. If needed We can have article place on www.hhmgrecords.com to confirm jarretts status Jarrett Also has music out internationally. Jarrett Michael & The Miles Walker Band & Shades of Fame.. Both Notable bands/Groups

Jarrett Michael & The miles Walker Band has just gone Viral on SoundCloud over 2 million plays this week. He is the founder of both bands. I am friend of his trying to help him with his wikipedia page.. Both bands are verified on Facebook Google PLus Spotify Shazam Every Social Media Platforms are Verified . Recognized as a public p Figure. (PocketParis0

(https://www.facebook.com/mileswalkerband) (https://www.facebook.com/shadesfamemusic) (http://www.gardenhouserecords.com/news/mag-interviews-shades-fame/) (https://macmillanartsgazette.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/interview-with-jarrett-and-greg-from-shades-of-fame/)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk-wrbWBQM8) - youtube video 95k views (https://soundcloud.com/dropandhookrecords/itsgoingdown) - song on soundcloud with over 1 millions plays

both pages verified with a blue check mark. Facebook Recognizes his work . this is the last Social platform for Jarrett M Pruitt to have a article on (pocketparis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketparis (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Social platform. We have notability guidelines for who gets ana rticle here. We are not here for free advertising and legitification. L3X1 (distant write)

Delete This person fails our notability guideline for musicians. The article is filled with name-dropping, claiming that the person has worked with many famous performers, yet the references are to the Wikipedia biographies which do not mention Pruitt. If Pruitt was an important collaborator with these celebrities, then the evidence would be ample. A Google search comes up dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy delete, potentially speedy as a combo hoax/no credible claims of significance. I just removed a massive section that was totally unsupported by any 'source' included in the article (the worked with section.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment changed my !vote to speedy delete - I removed the excessive fluff, unsubstantiated name drops and we're left with basically one sentence - he's the single member of a no-name band. Everything else was a hoax and it's a copyvio. So many to choose from, A7, G11, G3...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, 2 editors marked it for A7 and G11 yet a certain know-it-all re:A7 who wrote his own treatise and dispenses justice by it rather than using CA7M declined our A7s and ignored my G11 request. Granted, the page creator deleted my CSD tags, but it would of been plainly visible in the articles history. "Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7" CA7M says the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant" instead, yet the admin gets hung up on that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant section of A7. The articles get deleted anyway, and having to AfD them just wastes community time. Chrissymad You're welcome to tag it and see what happens, you have more experience with CSD than grumpy ole me does. L3X1 (distant write) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:BAND and it clearly just advertising. The author has admitted to having a conflict of interest and has already attempted to create Shades of Fame which was deleted as unambiguous advertising. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Largely WP:PROMO and fails WP:NBAND. -- Dane ^talk 21:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Loia

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NPERSON. No evidence of coverage in independent sources, and more narrowly seems to fail WP:NAUTHOR--high school writing competitions are insignificant and the magazine cited seems to lack so much as a website, to say nothing of independent coverage, making it nowhere near "significant or well known." The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning high school writing competitions is not a claim to notability. I am tempted to say this should be speedied under A7 because it makes no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with JPL on the A7 criteria here-- though I think they are university level writing competitions (I can't really tell). Either way, it isn't a claim to significance and certainly not notability. If someone else agrees with the speedy, you can count my !vote for that, but I also see no reason to rush it. On another note, I want his sun glasses. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I'm pretty sure this is a WP:COI page created by the subject.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Bholat

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

This article does not provide multiple published secondary reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. It uses a single source, much of which consists of first-person material from the subject. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She was appointed by the Governor of California to the State's medical board. I see a detailed profile article in nbclatino.com, and several other sources related to her efforts in the latino and medical communities. Sources establish notability per WP:GNG.198.58.162.200 (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now several secondary sources. She has played an important role as an immigrant doctor.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable as per comments above and a search on Google Books, her work is well cited. She has received awards in the field of immigration medicine. Netherzone (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Two indicators of notability under WP:GNG are (1) membership on the California state medical board (a fairly weak indicator), (2) author of a highly cited work (possibly a weak pass of C1 of WP:PROF). I am less convinced that cofounding the "International Medical Graduate Program" (a program that lacks a Wikipedia article) is a clear indicator of notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and rather seems to be something done in the course of her regular administrative duties at UCLA. However, since the article is about a woman, and the articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia, I think it can be kept based on just barely meeting some of the notability criteria. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sławomir Biały, your comment is incredibly sexist and offensive. Do you find it hard living in a contemporary world where men and women are equal?198.58.162.200 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF directly sponsors efforts to write articles specifically about women. When articles written as part of these efforts turn out not to meet our notability guidelines, I have observed a group of the same editors arguing that the articles be kept, specifically because those articles were part of the WMF program. I don't think it's necessarily wrong that articles about women be held to a lower standard. But observing inequalities like this is not sexist. It is in fact quite the opposite, and is something we are trained to do in cultural sensitivity training. I'd encourage you to withdraw the personal attack. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sławomir Biały, I suggest you explain that statement, provide proof (I won't hold my breath) that a lower standard exists, and retract what you stated. freshacconci (✉) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation above. Save drama for ANI, thanks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, you have no proof to back up your nonsense, just "I observed...". And when someone calls you out for your sexism you hide their comment. Pretty much says it all about you. freshacconci (✉) 01:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Robertson, for one. Note the special pleading there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this. Articles on female academics are twice as likely to close as "keep" as articles about men. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Hopefully you will take into account Sławomir Biały's muddying the water with his (Redacted) freshacconci (✉) 01:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You too. Your disagreement over the appropriate way to get women well-represented here (which clearly from both of your comments is part of the goals of both you and SB) is no excuse for attacking other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly was the personal attack? The sexism stands but responding to sexism is redacted. And Sławomir Biały thinks Wikipedia lowers the bar for topics about women. Apparently the bar is quite low for acceptable sexism. Nice. (And no, Sławomir Biały has no interest women being well-represented. That's the whole point). freshacconci (✉) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling someone sexist, merely because he openly and approvingly describes mechanisms for increasing representation of women, rather than (as you seem to think he should do) carrying out those mechanisms but simultaneously pretending they're not happening, is an attack. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - "...he openly and approvingly describes mechanisms for increasing representation of women..." What on earth were you reading? I have to say it: I got nothing. He actually said: "However, since the article is about a woman, and the articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia, I think it can be kept based on just barely meeting some of the notability criteria." That's not a positive statement. That's a sexist statement. But I guess you redacting the comments and your bizarre interpretation of Sławomir Biały's comments kind of proves the low bar that is set for sexism tolerance on Wikipedia, and pretty much demonstrates why the Women in Red group exists. freshacconci (✉) 02:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The sentence you quote has no opinion in it whatsoever, and certainly not a sexist opinion. It is a statement of fact (possibly true, possibly false) about how Wikipedia works. The part that demonstrates his approval for this mechanism is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red where he also wrote "I think it should even be written into policy. That's the essence of affirmative action, which is a good thing." In your zeal to attack sexists you are firing on people with the same goals. Regardless, attacking sexists has no place here, any more than attacking feminists or attacking nestorianists or whatever. Respond to the arguments about the article, not to your perception or misperception about the thoughts of the people making them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm having difficulty responding to your comments about whether or not his comments are sexist out of sheer disbelief. You're actually saying that "articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia" is a statement of fact? I'm floored, honestly. However, your following statement is particularly appalling: "attacking sexists has no place here" and that you equate sexists with feminists. If he had said something racist you better believe I'd call him a racist and I can't imagine you'd equate racists with the targets of racism. But that's exactly what you're saying here: sexists cannot be "attacked" (which to you is any criticism of explicitly sexist comments). And the fact that you cannot see the extreme sexism in his comments and somehow believe that his condescension is really about working for the same goal is troubling, particularly from an administrator (and apparently a RL professor). And don't you dare dismiss my comments as "zeal." As for responding to arguments about the article, I was. That's what this was: a response to a sexist comment dismissing pretty much any biography about women as being the result of a "lower bar" of inclusion. And that you are incapable of seeing that is shameful. freshacconci (✉) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slawomir, I changed my mind.I agree with you now, and I think it's very problematic not only that we have lower notability standars for women, but that there are actually women editing here. This is a man's world and a man's work. I'm with you buddy. Also thank the lord that we have a hat function to cover up any objections to that philosophy. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considerable amounts of sourcing and material has been added since this AFD started - I just added another one which is her membership on the board of a government health agency. --Krelnik (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Unanimous consensus that WP:NFOOTY supports the retention of this article, with additional policy-based arguments also supporting Keep. Any issues with WP:NFOOTY should be addressed at the appropriate venue. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ainscow

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

A Run-of-the-mill article; just an ordinary professional football player, only subject to routine coverage. Burning Pillar (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the Football League, meaning he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This, however, doesn't adress the problem that this is a Run-of-the-mill professional football player whose coverage doesn't even go beyond mere routine coverage in newspapers and the usual big databases.Burning Pillar (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY. Lepricavark (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- These !votes rely on arguments that are made contrary to policy. Per WP:N, an article must not only pass a notability guideline, it also must not be excluded under WP:NOT. Passing the notability guideline is not a sufficient argument to keep an article if there are arguments that it is excluded under WP:NOT.Burning Pillar (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lemme ask you a question: would you apply the same argument to an article such as this one? Also, how is this player disqualified by WP:NOT? Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably yes... Now, look at the sources.A Newspaper that doesn't even mention the subject, statistics from fan sites,a staff list... there are lots, and I mean lots of people who satisfy this. Take a look at section 2 of WP:NOTNEWS and then tell me that you see more than routine coverage like broad statistics databases or newspapers or staff lists....
    - If you really want to look only at WP:NFOOTBALL, then there are actually some other problems- WP:NFOOTBALL is treated as something that makes articles always notable in this discussion, but the article can only pass 2. and the criteria don't say that meeting that should be always treated as automatic notability; AND the sources that support these WP:NFOOTBALL claims are not meeting these criteria, while they actually must if WP:NSPORTS is to be applied for keeping.( Additionally, the WP:NSPORTS page claims that it only exists to help editors evaluate if the article indeed could meet WP:GNG, but I don't think that the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria do that, but this is probably more a reason to make some changes to the guideline as parts of it contradict others). Burning Pillar (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not as familiar with football/soccer players, but after reading your response to my question about the baseball player, I can't take your comments here seriously. Moreover, I'm not sure which article you are claiming has statistics from "fan sites", but I fail to see how that relates to NOTWHOSWHO. At the end of the day, it's our job to provide useful information for our readers. It is a disservices to our readers to delete articles such as this one. You should note the keep !votes by experienced editors (who know Wikipedia policy) in this discussion and reconsider why you are trying to get this page deleted. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, these broad statistics on fansites are practically a WP:WHOSWHO, and if we base articles solely on sources that are a whoswho, or routine news, then we are allowing these sources to make Wikipedia what it should not be. And indeed, the article doesn't go beyond providing statistics in prose- there is nothing special about this player. I can sum this article up like that: This player played some games in the football league, scored in his debut(not uncommon; alsoWP:DOGBITESMAN), then retired(and became a junior coach somewhere). There are no indications of anything that makes this player stand out in the crowd- for example an outstanding performance over multiple seasons(something that might cause this player to get non-routine attention by reliable sources).This player is nothing special. Wikipedia is not a repository for broad statistics databases or a regurgiation of all press attention.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I notice that you didn't respond to the part of my comment regarding all the experienced !keep voters who have a strong grasp of policy. Also, you have yet to explain why deleting this article would help our readers. Your argument here is a classic case of leaning too heavily on policies and guidelines without giving any consideration to the actual benefits of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Benefit of deletion? Not giving this football player undue attention.Burning Pillar (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a horrible reason to delete an article. Lepricavark (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NFOOTY. — foxj 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So I wanted to take this a bit beyond the typical "keep, he passes WP:NFOOTY" argument. WP:NFOOTY gives a presumption that sources exist. I think this is helpful in a few instances. One is when a subject is relatively old. The older a subject is (or for an athlete the older their prime sporting years), the harder it is to actually find sources. While certainly this applies to pre-Internet players, I think that can go back as few as five years as many sources are not online anymore. Here, the subject played about 30 years ago. Let's face it, most editors are sitting at their computer and doing online research. No one is going through hard newspapers finding sources. However, we can presume that a player that played in the Football League of that era would have been covered in newspapers - its just difficult and a lot to ask a volunteer website to go check those. Also in the favor is this player played in 22 games over multiple seasons. Its not like we have a guy who made an appearance in 1 game in the last ten minutes. He scored four times. I think its fair to say that a scorer for Wigan would have been covered in the local newspapers. Its a presumption the community has created and it should be respected. I could see a different argument for a player who two years ago played one game and then retired. For that, we could as to show cause to see what is out there. In that case, the Internet should have something. Here, its not reasonable for the Internet to have much and the vast majority of newspapers are not Internet archived and readily searchable. In view of the players age and the relatively large number of appearances, I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure that your claim that this player had routine coverage in newspapers is correct, but that isn't sufficient for WP:GNG, and the article still violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTWHOSWHO if the reasons for the existance of this article are mere statistics and routine news coverage. Your reasoning doesn't convince me that I am wrong at all, rather the opposite. But thanks for giving your reasoning. It helps.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of the article has played in a professional league with relatively well known clubs such as Wigan Athletic and Rotherham United. True the article is not the best written but that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY as noted multiple times above. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources is a compelling reason to delete - being "interesting" is not a reason to keep. Sandstein 17:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terxo AG

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

fails WP:GNG. Nice novel but still a tiny company that fails to prove its notability The Banner talk 01:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting Swiss company who supplies big companys (Emmi, Bericap) with foodpackaging products.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm unable to locate sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important! Search has to be in the Geman Name "Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug" , not with Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did just that, and it gave me less than 800 google hits, including the own website and social media. The Banner talk 10:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ther is no regulation that it must have 801, 900, 1000 or what ever goole hits. Also it is wirten in Books about it.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could please translate this in English? The Banner talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization ... recreation should be allowed in the future if additional sources are found BlueSalix (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueSalix you have to search with the German name, not with the english translation..Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable organization. Preserving Swiss Military History of the canton Zug, , responible for the only still existing Bristol Bloodhound Complex. Preserving Bunkers and open them for visitorsFFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

We have enough sources:

David Külling, Manfred Hildebrand, Maurice Lovisa: Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe. VBS 2008 David Külling, Manfred Hildebrand, Maurice Lovisa: Military monuments in the area of the Luftwaffe. VBS 2008
Silvio Keller, Maurice Lovisa, Thomas Bitterli: Militärische Denkmäler in den Kantonen Uri, Schwyz und Zug. Inventar der Kampf- und Führungsbauten. (Hrsg.) Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, Bern 2005 [7]
Patrick Jordi: Militärhistorische Stiftung und die Festungen im Kanton Zug, Baar 2002
website - with all necessary information on the visits of the fortresses and the museum "Bloodhound"
Website ZDT - ZDT Zug depot technology history
Website FORT - CH - Homepage of the Swiss civilian organizations for fortresses
Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug: Karten der Werke
Die Schweizerische Fliegerabwehr 75Jahre Flab 1936-2011 , Albert Wüst, ISBN 978-3-905616-20-0
Bloodhound unit as museum in Menzingen, Switzerland

FFA P-16 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, I did not check the rest, but the first one (Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe) does not mention the organisation at all! The Banner talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well ,if you don't understand what i had answered to your comment about the google search, it is no surprise that you don't understand the context in Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe. Also that you ignor all the other sources shows cleary that you use Deletios Nominations against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that I say it blunt: you are falsifying sources, making the whole article unreliable. The Banner talk 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. Only because you are not able to unerstand the context about this sources and references is not a reason to delet this articel. Also you say only read the first link and you havn't understand the context.Is one thing but ignoring all the other ones Show your true motivation... Because just a look at the second one [8] " Zusammen mit dem eidgenössischen Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport (VBS) und der Militärhistorischen Stiftung des Kantons Zug (MHSZ) wurde nach Wegen gesucht, um eine komplette Feuereinheit für die Nachwelt zu erhalten. ...Das VBS gestattet der MHSZ und dem Kanton Zug den Zutritt zur Anlage. Die MHSZ ist für den Museumsbetrieb zuständig und ermöglicht im Rahmen von Führungen auch den Besuch für die Öffentlichkeit." FFA P-16 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of "passing mention"? The Banner talk 09:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "passing mention" the organization exists since 1994, The "Bloodhound" Museum exists since 2002. It is the only Museum on the world who has preserved the whole Bloodhound System ( not only the Missile) also the other Museum who contains Vehicles of Public Transportation, Firefightingvehicles and Military trucks& tanks exists since 2009. Also, like already told, the Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug is also part in Documents and in a Book. Also the MHSZ has created documents for the highschools of the canton Zug.[9] FFA P-16 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rework into a list of military heritage sites in Switzerland. Compare Template:List of cultural property of national significance in Switzerland for (civil) examples. The sites themselves are probably notable enough for a list, particularly at the national level (there was something of an obsession in Switzerland to bunkerize the whole country during the Second and Cold War), but this local foundation as such is unlikely to be notable and I'm not seeing the sources to convince me otherwise. Sandstein 12:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone who knows German sort out the claims of notability made above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read German. The sources do not establish notability for the foundation because they are not independent of it, as they are mostly published on the foundation's own website (http://www.mhsz.ch). The paper by Patrick Jordi is an unpublished student paper. The Swiss Air Force publications do not mention the foundation, except once as a passing mention. Sandstein 09:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation is only the overall organization. the two museums are part of it. An Musuem of this size is notable.. and in this articel we have two museums.I see no need to delet all of this Informations about the hardware, the Museums, only because the organisation should be not notable.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not gonna !vote on this one since it's difficult to conclusively evaluate the sources, but they look pretty weak. For example, a news search for the original German name gives exactly six results, and a verbatim news search gives exactly zero. I agree that the places themselves are almost certainly notable, as places themselves normally are, but I am inclined to take User:Sandstein at his word on the quality of what's already in the article.

This could be a good candidate for draftifying, in the case that someone wants to try to excise the "place content" and spin off articles on those. And a good few screen shots may be in order in case anyone wants to write a snarky essay on WP:IMAGEOVERKILL. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a fan page instead of a wiki article; such content belongs on the org's web site, not here. As others pointed out, sources are not sufficient to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- WP does have articles on most publicly accessible museums, etc. This appears to be about an organisation running several. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can read German too, and I completely agree with Sandstein's evaluation of the sources. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete; the only choice here is between keep and merge, with people being about evenly divided on that. Since merging is fundamentally a content decision which doesn't require admin interaction, if people still think a merge/redirect is in order, that discussion can continue on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Albania)

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

Was a redirect, but you have an editor who insists on reverting to a virtually uncited article, which shows no independence from Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa), which is itself a poorly cited article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The channel does show independence from EMEA, as I've stated before, the channel besides English programs with Alb subtitles shows Albanian dubbings as well (sample 1; sample 2; sample 3), it also shows its own bumpers and promos (sample). These are enough evidences to prove that the channel exists, I mean I am looking at it right now in my TV which has Digitalb. The launching evidence is also listed there in the references. I really don't understand all this disagreement. Whoamiwilli (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What a coincidence that after reverting my edits to redirect the article to the EMEA variant, the "official" YouTube account for the Albanian variant of the channel was created on the same day. This is no real reference. -Bankster1 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've explained this to you before on your talk page. I have asked them why did they close their previous YT channel and they explained it. I still have the message on Facebook, let me know if you want to see it. Also let's not forget about the first sample which is an actual (raw) footage of this channel in Albanian. Whoamiwilli (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2017 (CET)

Keep and expand Ngrica (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa) as a dedicated subfeed managed by both Digitalb and The Walt Disney Company Europe. If I'm not proven wrong, I believe this Albanian variant has the same schedule like the EMEA feed, just with a partial territorial disconnection from the main variant to provide Albanian audio and subtitle language tracks from Digitalb. -Bankster1 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa) Albania may not be in the EU yet (they are a good candidate) but they are in Europe and as Bankster1. Some of the more major countries have their own, like France and Spain, but the other smaller ones, like this one, all get redirected. - Pmedema (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very curious to know why this EMEA article's name was changed from Disney Channel (Southern Africa) to Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East and Africa). Is there any source that proves this? Ngrica (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are different sources proving this, but this can summarise it. Disney Channel "Southern Africa" was in fact the Middle Eastern version of the network that Disney launched in 1997. It was managed by the Southeast Asian team (Singapore) until December 2004, when it became part of the Euro team managed from London. As it was heavily linked to the Scandinavian feed in promos and channel's schedule beginning in 2005, it began to be distributed as a Pan-European feed, and was launched in South Africa on September 25, 2006 (that's why some people over there mistakenly think there's an actual African feed, hence the former name of this article). Then it was launched on Poland, Turkey and Greece with their respective audio tracks for each country, but the first two finally got their own localised channels and the latter one is stick to this EMEA feed with a Greek audio track. During the mid 2000s up until 2010, this variant of the Disney Channel started to be carried on ex-Yugoslav TV operators (including Albania) with an Serbo-Croatian subtitle track enabled for the whole region. In 2009, the EMEA feed adopts the CEE-based promos, unlinking itself from the Nordic feed due to the rebrands from Jetix to Disney Channel in those regions. The channel still carries an Arabic audio track available only for animated series, and has recently launched an HD simulcast of that channel (with Arabic subtitles available for live-action shows, not present in the SD feed). Moreover, the variant used to show the KSA timezone onscreen while the narrator on the English track said the CET airings of the show. Currently, the channel broadcasts in English, Arabic, Greek with audiotracks available and in Serbo-Croatian with an subtrack available as well, needless to say that an HD simulcast is available exclusively for OSN in the Arab World. --Bankster (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But didn't you say above that this variant has also Albanian audio and sub tracks? You didn't include this here when you were counting the languages that are available. Also I found this sentence quite odd in the EMEA article: "broadcasting in the Balkans, Greece, the Middle East and Africa." Greece is also in the Balkans lol Ngrica (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming it had one, because there are no references about this feed having an additional Albanian audio/subtrack (on its main feed or via regional disconnection), just recordings on YouTube provided by @Whoamiwilli:. And also, I listed Greece as a separate region from the Balkans because it has its own audio/subs track and has minimal disconnection from the main feed when it comes solely to ads (provided by NOVA as far as I'm concerned), in contrast with the Adriatic countries that receive the channel in English with Serbo-Croatian subs with advertisement provided by local TV operators (which can interrupt broadcasting). --Bankster (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I struggled as to whether we should keep or merge this article. Bankster won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the sources that I saw, I could clearly see that this version of Disney Channel is legit, with audio/subs and ads in Albanian. - IEstiv03 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources fail under WP:VIDEOLINK for copyright violations. By the way, your vote may be questionable due to the fact your account was created nearly three weeks ago and your poorly involvement in Wikipedia in terms of contributions, which implies that this account falls in WP:MTPPT and WP:SPU. --Bankster (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your account is "falling" under WP:WL and WP:MOREX. - IEstiv03 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not, actually. It's not proven in my statements nor comments anywhere in this request for deletion. Instead, you're demonstrating yourself an impudent attitude towards an user who does not share your point of you about the deletion of this article, making nonsense claims not supported by any consistent argument. It is a matter of fact that users involved in a voting of any matter in Wikipedia must have a considerable number of contributions and length in the project to be considerate as an valid stand, and you keep ignoring it. (WP:DR) --Bankster (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting: "There are no vested contributors. No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers." I have just as right as you to vote here.- IEstiv03 (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yup, you're right (it applied on the Spanish Wikipedia since I mostly contribute on there, so I assumed the English Wiki would apply that too). Nonetheless, you're not giving any argument or opinion about this matter in order to your vote be counted as valid by admins or bureaucrats, just a vague, redundant acceptance of an already debunked stand on this deletion request. --Bankster (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT#1 as no one but nominator wanted the article deleted (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Caplan

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

I have been cleaning up a large amount of refspam related to the paid editing ring of user:Vipul. Among his edits were dozens of additions of primary-sourced opinions by Bryan Caplan on various sundry topics, all primary sourced to Caplan's blog posts. Vipul is also a writer on the same blog. Vipul extensively rewrote this article. But, you know, Caplan teaches at George Mason, so I dind't think much about it, but I just checked Google and while "Bryan Caplan" (quoted) scores a fair number of hits, as you page through you get a total unique hit count of 172, which is staggeringly low given the extent to which he's been promoted on Wikipedia.

It's astonishing how often when you find Caplan mentioned in a Wikipedia article, the mention was added by his friend and co-blogger Vipul. As in: virtually every mention I have found to date.

Looking at the sources, there are a few book reviews, here are some namechecks, but the evidence of passing WP:PROF looks, on reflection, rather thin.

And I have to say I am always suspicious when "X has been reviewed in Y sources" is sourced to the reviews themselves. Where are the reliable independent analyitcal sources about the subject? Guy (Help!) 00:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for you for your clean up, I came across this page by looking up Caplan after seeing this edit of yours. That being said I believe there is more than sufficient notability for this page. As can be found in it, there are whole articles about the subject's opinions or interviews with him about parenting: in The Wall Street Journal [10] [11] (I can only access one, the other having a paywall) and the The Guardian [12] [13]. His books received wider coverage: The New York Times [14], The Wall Street Journal [15] (?, paywalled), NPR [16], etc. His opinions on politics seem to have been picked up by The New Yorker [17] (article dedicated to him), and in lesser extent (but more than just a mention) by Time [18] and The Huffington Post [19]. I think rewriting the lead to reflect the notability of what opinions of him get picked up would be a good idea; for instance, his opinions on parenting seem to be picked up as much as his political opinions (even though there is some overlap), and currently the lead portraits him solely as a political/economy author. That being said I strongly oppose to the deletion of the article based on lack of notability, per WP:BIO. Concerning your accusations of spam perhaps you should initiate a formal process against that/those users, I'm not familiar with the case. Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'll concentrate on the academic work, in particular The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. from WP:PROF. Look at the Google scholar profile page here. This is a widely cited scholar, for instance, his book The myth of the rational voter by Princeton University Press has 879 citations. He has been widely published in many econ journals as well, including Public Choice, Journal of Law and Economics, The American Economic Review. His h-index is 26, which is quite high, if one looks at the h-index WP page, The London School of Economics found that full professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics).. See this list of economists by h-index. The list is incomplete; Caplan doesn't show up on it, but he would be in the top 400 based on the h-index.
Other parts of WP:PROF also apply, but this should be enough to demonstrate notability, in my opinion. If people think that Caplan is too widely quoted on Wikipedia, even in places which aren't appropriate, by all means remove or replace their mentions. Deleting a BLP page is inappropriate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most probably passes PROF (from a quick google-scholar search + his position at George Mason which would be difficult to achieve without research). He also possibly passes GNG (he is covered on "open borders" and a bunch of other stuff in MSM). I agree that the article itself does seem a tad promotional - take a hacksaw and chop it down.Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The evidence that x has been reviewed by x,y,and z, should be documented by links to the reviews, though there are possible shortcuts-- I normally use a WorldCat reference if the reviews have a separate item on WorldCat (as they are if published in JSTOR or Project Muse journals) ; a third party source for this is very rare and unnecessary. The entire concept of WP:PROF is built around the use of citations and reviews as the third party evidence for notability, not as requiring third party evidence themselves. To do so is equivalent of not accepting a NYTimes news story as a reference unless it had itself been referred to by some other publication. That's a research technique appropriate for analytical history and historiography, not part of mere encyclopedia writing. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP PROf. When the pertson is important enough,promotionalism becomes a little less relevant. It's the people who are borderline notable whose promotional articles are not worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - last time this was up for AfD, JzG (the nom this time) !voted keep, what is different this time? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even more ironically, he voted keep as per WP:POINT. K.Bog 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Edit: though this is WP:NOTPOINTy. K.Bog 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I do believe JzG's efforts to deal with libertarian articles related to Vipul, Caplan, GMU, etc are very impressive and good for the encyclopedia, and I don't have any problem with their changing an opinion here, but Caplan is a fairly notable public academic in my opinion, and I would !vote keep even without the previous AfD result. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Sufficient RS supporting academic notability. (A little more care should have been taken before simply shotgun-AFD'ing everything that Vipul ever looked sideways at.)--Froglich (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Boyd (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Even though he currently fails NHOCKEY currently, he is having a very good year at Hershey, and frankly could get a call any day...I'd guess his WSH debut this year at +50%. It's a poorly written, prematurely posted article, but it looks like it was written in good faith, and can be upgraded. I'd like to keep this proposed delete on ice until the end of the NHL season. Bill McKenna (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was called up on February 21st but failed to play in a game. Very likely to pass the 200 AHL games mark next season, or get play an NHL game, but easy to reinstate article when (or if) it happens. There is some news about his call up to the Capitals, if there is enough to pass GNG I would happily change my vote.18abruce (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was thinking "too soon," albeit barely, and though I am sympathetic to the notion that an in-season call-up to the NHL will make a player of more interest even if he fails to get into a game. But he has significant coverage in the Washington Times at least here and in the Washington Post at least here, here and here. His call up got some more minor coverage at least here. And I found a fairly significant article here, less significant coverage of his All-Star game selection here and here and another minor article here. So I think he has plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage Rlendog provided is enough to meet WP:GNG, even if he currently is a technical fail or WP:NHOCKEY. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog's sources & research. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

400 (card game)

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

I found no coverage for this game and the article is unsourced. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding much in reliable sources, but [20] is a reliable source that it has existed in the past and there are a number of on-line versions of the game on the web. IAR keep on the theory that it appears to be a real and significant game, but I can't find sufficient sources to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the French page gives two bibliographic sources. I don't know what the notability criteria are for card games, but they would presumably serve as references for the rules at least, if someone can find them and check. As it happens I have an older edition of one (the Penguin book) and can't find the game in there, but then I can't find Spades, either. Mortee (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Google Books couldn't locate it in their copy either under the name 400, but the 'lire en ligne' link from the French page suggested looking up "41, Syrian card game" instead, which is there (in Google's copy, not mine):

Parlett, David (2008-08-07). The Penguin Book of Card Games. ISBN 9780141037875.

that leads me to this page also giving the rules and attesting to the "400" variant name. Unfortunately, the Penguin book gives different scoring - just double points for 7 tricks or more, whereas we and Pagat say double for 5+, triple for 9+ and instant win for 13). Anyway, some coverage at least, to weigh into considerations. Mortee (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Finding RS in English is difficult for the countries concerned but good work by previous commenters indicates verifiability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like IAR keep call it GNG keep the sources provided show that if someone with the language skills could locate the sources, they would likely exist, which meats the criteria for GNG. Let's not delete this because of systemic bias. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.thenewyorkoptimist.com/SaraPedigo_Jan28_2014.html

[2] [1]

[3] User talk:Recaptcha1234

[afc-4] Draft:The Adventures of Magicland

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Snaefell Mountain Course
Start to Glen Helen	TT Grandstand St Ninian's Crossroads Bray Hill Quarterbridge Road Quarterbridge Braddan Bridge Union Mills Ballahutchin Hill Ballagarey Corner Glen Vine Crosby Cross-Roads Highlander Greeba Castle Appledene Greeba Bridge Gorse Lea Ballagarraghyn Ballacraine Ballaspur Ballig Doran's Bend Laurel Bank Black Dub Glen Helen
Glen Helen to Ballaugh Bridge	Creg Willey's Hill Sarah's Cottage Lambfell Molyneux's 11th Milestone Handley's Corner McGuinness's Barregarrow Cronk Urleigh Douglas Road Corner Rhencullen Birkin's Bend Bishopscourt Orrisdale North Dub Cottage Alpine Cottage Ballacobb Ballaugh Bridge
Ballaugh Bridge to Ramsey	Ballacrye Corner Quarry Bends Caley's Sulby Bridge Ginger Hall Kerrowmoar Glen Duff School House Corner Parliament Square Whitegates Ramsey Hairpin
Ramsey to Bungalow	Waterworks Tower Bends Gooseneck 26th Milestone (Joey's) Guthrie's Memorial Mountain Mile Stonebreakers Hut Verandah Bungalow Bridge Bungalow
Bungalow to Cronk-ny-Mona	Hailwood's Height Brandywell Windy Corner Keppel Gate Kate's Cottage Creg-ny-Baa Gob-ny-Geay Brandish Corner Hillberry Corner Cronk-ny-Mona
Cronk-ny-Mona to Finish	Signpost Corner The Nook Governor's Bridge
List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course