Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD:G12 (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 03:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Ending (2016 Nigerian Film)

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

This film fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, and WP:NFO. A google search of the film doesn't show the film being discussed in reliable sources. The single reference cited in the article is a press release. Moreover, all of the sources online are press releases. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD:G12 as a copyvio of [1]. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:28, 24 January 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 to Speedy Delete under CSD:G12 (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

Locked up (2016 Nigerian Film)

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

This film fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, and WP:NFO. A google search of the film doesn't show the film being discussed in reliable sources. The single reference cited in the article is a press release. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G12 as a copyvio of [2]. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:16, 24 January 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 as sufficient consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Govt. Sarvodya Bal Vidyalaya

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL currently, unclear how it ever could. South Nashua (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Existence confirmed on Delhi government website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we keep articles on secondary schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 26 January 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 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 13765

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

Page just copies the text of the order without providing sources as to notability Kndimov (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just move it to Wikisource like we did with just about every other Executive Order (see List of United States federal executive orders 13489—13764)? -- Kndimov (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Executive orders by the President of the United States are notable. This looks like a case for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: Are you saying that every executive order should get an article? Clearly some are important (Executive Order 9066), but every one? Most are very mundane and get little coverage. This one is little more than a statement of principle. 331dot (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Executive orders are a key part of a President's duties. At minimum, redirects for each executive order going to a page on a specific topic relating to executive orders in a particular administration. South Nashua (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SOFIXIT. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just gave it a quick rewrite. Let's avoid a snow and speedy close this one. South Nashua (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not just move it to Wikisource like we did with just about every other Executive Order (see List of United States federal executive orders 13489—13764)? Plus it's sill not notable. I fail to see the impact, unlike his order to withdraw from the TPP. All the article says is that the order is: "Designed to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as 'Obamacare'". An executive order cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act. If you actually read it, all it says it "please slow down implementation of Obamacare, despite the fact it has already been implemented". The rest appears to be just rhetoric designed to show the new president's resolve. -- Kndimov (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if some executive orders are not notable, which I don't agree with, this one in particular is the culmination of a talking point during the presidential campaign he repeated numerous times. Plenty of room for expansion beyond the verbatim words of the order itself. South Nashua (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally notable. Reliable sources. Article might need little cleanup and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who says a simple executive order is independently notable? It's WP:NOTNEWS. This is sufficiently covered by First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because it's almost impossible for this to not have coverage from multiple independent sources: Considering the broad scope of this executive order — probably an attempt to reverse Obamacare to the maximum extent allowed by executive branch — I'm pretty sure multiple sources can be found soon, analyzing what this executive order's effect is, and how it affects healthcare in the United States until more complete acts of Congress are passed, and possibly also how it sets the tone for the Trump administration. --Closeapple (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move the text of the order to Wikisource; anything remaining can be merged with Donald Trump's first 100 days article, or an article about efforts to repeal the ACA. This order is little more than a statement of principle. 331dot (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have plenty of articles dedicated to EOs, and this is Trump's first, so clearly there is significance.Bkwillwm (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the executive order. This is part of a rather broad structure of Category:United States executive orders by president, which includes several dozen such articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. loads of news sources discuss it. If the article is more than just the text of the order, if it also includes historical context and effects, etc., that's a legitimate subject for an article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The substance of this order is essentially that it is a step towards repealing the ACA; I'm not sure what historical context it has, but I would think that it could be discussed as part of the ACA article, or an article detailing efforts to repeal it. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either list them all, or none of them. Some being more important than others is subjective and only having articles for a few is inconsistent. I like how the past two terms from Obama lists them all at Wikisource per Kndimov. --Charitwo ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Trump's executive orders will be listed in List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above. The article has an external link leading to the text, so there's no need for separate articles if those articles only present the content of the order. In this case I think the executive order should be discussed in the article about ACA or in a separate article about the repeal of ACA. Sjö (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. This article definitely needs expansion, but the executive order has received coverage from The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post, among others. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. The objections of several here could be dealt with by improving the article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever replaces Obamacare will have an article. This executive order is a single step towards that replacement and by itself is insignificant. Maybe there could be an article 2017 Obamacare repealment effort if you find yourself unable to wait. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If and when that subject gets beyond this executive order, it may be plausible that the executive order is no longer separately notable from that subject and can be merged. But right now, all there is to the actual Obamacare changes in the current term is this. Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exist, but the only effort that has actually has the force of law so far is this executive order. --Closeapple (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my comment to Merge into Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act then. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, executive orders are not inherently notable (nor are they usually), but this one seems to pass GNG. ansh 666 21:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Executive orders pass the GNG. 'Nuff said. Completely improper nomination given the general tendency to have individual articles for every individual EO, and that's well before we get into the fact that this one in particular recieved a boatload of media coverage which is cited in the article already. Karunamon ^✉ 02:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to look again. Every single one of those wikilinks links to the corresponding WikiSource page. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, actually I'm a little wrong. That page has a few links to Obama's EOs under the "Title/Description" column. There are around 12 EO articles in Category:Executive_orders_of_Barack_Obama. I wouldn't say 12 out of 275 is a "general tendency" at all. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every presidential executive order needs its own page. This one, the content can be easily assimilated into the first 100 days and PPACA page. Compare and contrast with the newsworthiness of the executive order on Muslim travel and refugees. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, passes WP:GNG, content can be added into other relevant articles, but there's no reason why we should not also have a separate article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}05:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – We don't need a separate article for every paper the President signs. There's a list for this, and subject matter is covered elsewhere, for example at Obamacare and First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above AusLondonder (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, ideally to Shit Donald Trump Says. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? For a guy who is apparently an administrator, that was kind of unprofessional. We are trying to have a serious discussion here, thank you. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. One article on the endless series of fuckwittedness emanating from the White House is enough right now. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This particular Executive Order has been critiqued by numerous reliable sources, seen on these Google News articles: [3] Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above. The article now references three news sources discussing the order, demonstrating notability. I can see why it was nominated, but in its current form it's downright confusing to have a deletion nomination on it. -NorsemanII (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independently notable. — RockMFR 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Executive orders by the President of the United States are notable. It needs cleaned up more. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improper use of WP article delete procedure. This process is for identifying topics that *should not* be articles in WP. It is not meant for poorly written articles, which should be listed at WP:CLEANUP, not here. Davodd (talk) 06:07, 31 January 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. czar 08:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance Extra

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

Non notable radio station, Fails RADIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a classic example of WP:COI editing and it seems that the articles creator, Decodicil, is using an WP:SPA account. I am further troubled by the lack of references in this article. If anything, the article could be merged into London Musicians Collective due to the affiliation. It might help if Decodicil offers some sources while its deletion is being discussed per WP:BURDEN. Eliko007 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails [WP:GNG]]. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 03:49, 26 January 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. czar 08:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfall

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

I cant find any third party references mentioning this at all. Some mention of a film of the same name, and a gaming company of the same name, but no mention of this game except in self published or primary sources. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "video game's" existence cannot be confirmed. Meatsgains (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic has no significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:04, 25 January 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 12:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Friedmann-Balayla Model

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

Article based on a concept described in a single Journal paper (that has not been cited by any others). References within this article, apart from the reference pointing directly to the paper, do not mention "The Friedmann-Balayla Model" and in fact, they pre-date the publication of the Journal paper by many years. The GNG is definitely not met. (Note - improvement tags have been removed repeatedly and a PROD based on notability was declined by the page author) Exemplo347 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rigorous scientific and epidemiological paper, published in a scientific, peer-reviewed medical journal. The model is new and innovative, and addresses a concern that is raised by years of medical literature. It is an important addition to the zeitgeist, and it should be commended as such Tedmfm.

Nothing that you have said addresses the concerns that I have raised, both here at this discussion and on the talk page of the article. Please can you respond to my specific concerns, because they are related to Wikipedia's policies. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a new paper precisely because there was a need for the concept herein developed. As a consequence, all the references will be from the past, and won't cite the model. The fact it hasn't been cited has to do with it being so new. Similarly, the fact it is peer-reviewed means it has undergone strict and rigorous scientific scrutiny from the community, and it is NOT self-published. - Tedmfm. —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Self Published" means exactly that - the journal paper was written by the people who came up with this scientific model, so that's a self-published source. It doesn't fulfil the requirement under the General Notability Guideline that I've already suggested that you read, but I don't think you have. Specifically, the GNG calls for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your definition of "self-published" is correct. Self-publishing means you publish your own article by yourself. i.e without an independent editorial house, scientific journal, rigurous peer-review. In that case, the findings have no reliability and questioned validity. The Friedmann-Balayla model is different. While you are correct that the eponym comes from the authors who submitted the article, the peer review gives credence to the findings, which now make part of the medical literature. I have read the GNG and do not believe this article is in violation of the guidelines on the topics you have brought forth - Tedmfm —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - Independent Reliable Sources (plural) Exemplo347 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An academic paper was published in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine on 23 January 2017, the same day this article was created. While an article has been published in a peer-review journal, there has not yet been any review of this work that has been undertaken of this paper by other authors, such as asked for by WP:MEDRS. So there is nothing presented to suggest this theory itself is notable at this point. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:42, 29 January 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. The nominator is now proposing simply "reducing the article to a stub." While I agree with more experienced editors that a better way forward might be to reference what we have rather than cut it back -- any such improvements don't require an Afd and we're looking at a WP:SNOWy keep. Further discussions should take place on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical compound

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

The article has very little value because of its very small amount of sources and should be deleted so a better article can be made on a clean slate. Iamaplayer33 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative article on important concept. Ridiculous nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Although the lead and definions sections have some value, all the other sections have no sources. Maybe only the offending sections could be deleted, reducing the article to a stub. Iamaplayer33 (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete is not the answer as we clearly need an article with this title. I hope the WP:CHEMISTRY can work on it. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and reasonably written. Should be improved, not destroyed.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article dates to the early days of Wikipedia. At that time it was felt to be not necessary to provide references for material that was well-known enough to be in textbooks. Many, many science and math articles have few references even today for that reason. Deleting them and starting over is not a good solution. Even mass labeling of sections as having no sources is not a good idea. Put a single tag at the top, look at some textbooks, and provide sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there is now a HUGE tag atop the article declaring this problem for all to see, I've removed all the subsequent sourcing tags per WP:TAGBOMB. I've left the tag that claims there is a factual accuracy issue in one particular section, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the solution is not to delete it, the solution is to add references. Having recently brought ionic compound up from a state like this, and now nominated it for Good Article, I have experience in this area. Referencing such simple stuff is sometimes tedious and dull, but it is never difficult to find a source. Iamaplayer33, you seem new around here. I suggest having a go at finding a source for some of these statements. Grab a General Chemistry textbook, and pitch in. If you need help, you're welcome to contact me or WikiProject Chemistry. --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fundamental article in the field of chemistry and there are already more than enough sources to establish notability. If it needs more sources, add them. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 24 January 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 Sufficient consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exploris Middle School

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

Propose that this redirect to Wake County, North Carolina be restored as this is a middle school with no clear claim to notability. Jacona (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - no standalone notability.Glendoremus (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dan Koehl (talk) 18:59, 24 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurina Fleure

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

Not notable reality show contestant. She appeared in a season of The Bachelor Australia and subsequently in I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here but doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER in my eyes. She didn't win either program, and hasn't done anything else of particular merit that warrants an article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator): the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 as having a significant role in two different shows. She came third in Celebrity while in the Bachelor she was (according to the Daily Mail) ""one of the most popular contestants" She has more than 1000 hits on GNews, and even if most of them are tabloids it still indicates a significant impact well above that of the average reality show contestant. StAnselm (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How were they 'significant' roles? Why is she more notable than the winner or any other contestant in her season of The Bachelor, none of whom have articles. The depth of coverage about her is mostly trivial and almost exclusively related to events in either program. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep, or perhaps redirect to either The Bachelor Australia or I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here. The article as it stands only has one secondary source, so delete, but yes there is heaps of guff about her. So however meets GNG WP:NEXIST it seems just because she is a very little bit famous for being a very little bit famous. Her show appearances do not need to get her over the line. GNG does not need to have any remarkable events or achievements, just IRS to demonstrate notability and verifiability, and able to support a reasonably comprehensive article. I suggest the article creator turns the article into an in-depth multiply referenced article asap. As it stands the article's content does not demonstrate any notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added some guff. St Anselm (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I suggest you aim to have a few multi-sentence paragraphs in each of sections such as Early life and education, and Adult [personal] life, and Film and media, and Fashion industry, etc. These if all referenced by reliable secondary sources (and not for example any social media, or self publish, or personal blogs, might win you the day). Aoziwe (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you misunderstand what AfD is all about - sources generally only have to exist, not be in the article. AfD is not for cleanup. St Anselm (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. But the author was active so why not have them get "their" ((not) OWN) article up to scratch and make it easier to keep? AfD is not about cleanup but it sure can be an incentive for (other) interested editors to get to work on an article. No harm in that surely? Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "guff" turns this into nothing more than WP:PSEUDO. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The guff does need to be selected as balanced, reliable, and secondary of course. Aoziwe (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; one of those people famous for being famous. A Google search at first seems to pick up loads of coverage, but when you look into it I'm not sure that much of it is reliable; mainly gossip magazines and the celebrity inserts in newspapers, neither of which I think meet WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Voices

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

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

Delete. Two poorly sourced articles about radio programs produced by a single community radio station. While both programs are claimed to have been syndicated to various other radio stations in Canada, and thus would pass WP:NMEDIA if they could be reliably sourced as such, all of the sourcing shown here is to the programs' own self-published content about themselves, with no evidence of independent media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both need more sources but both seem quite notable for their guests, topics, and format. Canadian Voices, a non-profit show, was broadcast and seemingly syndicated across 37 college radio stations in Canada and one in the US, so it's not a local program but a national show. The Deconstructing Dinner article is about an internationally syndicated prominent show, program, and other topic areas which have been host to many extremely prominent food safety advocates, and seems a one-of-a-kind topic which for many reasons is notable. Randy Kryn 16:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is entirely a factor of whether the topic can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to pass WP:GNG — there's nothing that an article can claim about its topic that gets it included in Wikipedia, if it's just asserted without proper referencing for it. But I've done the necessary searches, in more than one place, and found that the depth and breadth of coverage needed to get the articles referenced properly simply isn't out there — Deconstructing Dinner gets namechecked a couple of times in articles about other things, but there's no substantive coverage about it on either Google or ProQuest, and Canadian Voices gets even less than that. There's simply none of the kind of media coverage it takes, and a radio show does not get a Wikipedia article just by having a self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sources now on the page, nor those I can find support notability. Creator should read WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above was about Canadian Voices.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if editors know there are two pages listed here. Both needs sources but are notable per the page, and both, as well as a third page up for deletion, seem to be the only progressive radio programs in Canada, which may explain their lack of cites. Deconstructing Dinner's page, for example, includes "It is one of the only sources of media in Canada and the U.S. solely dedicated to investigating the origins and impacts of food choices and sharing the stories of people and communities who are constructing food systems abroad." Canadian Voices and the other page are similarly unique in their subject matter. All three pages should be relisted again and notices given to other appropriate Wikipedia projects besides the two listed. Randy Kryn 14:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is entirely a matter of whether the article is properly sourceable or not. There is no way for a topic to be notable enough for an article in the absence of enough reliable sourcing about that topic to carry the notability — because notability is inherently a measure of sourceability. It's not a measure of whether any individual user does or doesn't care about the topic, or of how "unique" the topic claims to be — it's a measure of the degree to which the topic is or is not the subject of reliable source coverage in media, and if that simply doesn't exist then the article simply does not get to be kept regardless of what type of significance or uniqueness its own self-published content about itself claims that it has. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randy Kryn. There is adequate if not tons of source material, the program appears to be well-distributed and the guests who appear are notable entities. I would concur that more projects should be noted, particularly WikiProject British Columbia. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there "adequate source material", exactly, given that there's no reliable sourcing locatable about either show on either Google News or ProQuest? You can't just assert that adequate sources exist, if no adequate sources have been shown to exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein, but the last two !votes only appear to be addressing the Canadian Voices article listed atop the nomination, per the singular nouns used in the prose (e.g. "neither the sources now on the page...", "the program appears to be ...") (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deconstructing Dinner. Sources: I ran a proquest search, which turned up a 2008 article in the Mission City Record of Mission City, British Columbia, promoting a cross-Canada bicycle ride by the program's two hosts undertaken to The two co-producers are quoted saying that Deconstructing Dinner began on "January 2006 at Kootenay Co-op Radio CJLY in Nelson." (that's Nelson, British Columbia). Also, in 2004, the Nanaimo News Bulletin in Nanimo, British Columbia ran an announcement about this as a new program. So, all of this is uber local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Deconstructing Dinner" was a phrase that had some currency at the time, so searches turn up hits to articles with this title tha thave nothing to do with this program.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, in 2009 the Moncton, New Brunswick Times & Transcript ran a story entitled "The future of local food: deconstructing dinner" which is partly focused on this program, and interviews one of the program's co-producers. Here's that text: " Leading the presentation and discussion at the Dieppe Market will be Jon Steinman from Nelson, B.C. His remarkable radio program entitled "Deconstructing Dinner" serves as a sounding board for his belief that "food deserves far more attention than it currently receives and that we owe it to this planet and each other to fully understand the implications of our food choices." His broadcasts bring together farmers, journalists and researchers who "deconstruct the issues" to provide deeper context to consumers across the country. Those of you with an internet connection can access past programs at any time via podcasts. A podcast is simply a file found at a website that can be opened by your computer to play an audio recording. In other words, radio when you want it. A wide ranging list of food related topics is covered by this unique program that is heard on 34 radio stations." The article is a feature, not by one of paper's journalists, but by a writer described as "a founding member of Post Carbon Greater Moncton, President of the Riverview Environmental Strategies Committee, and writes a column called Energy Matters for the Saint John Telegraph Journal." Here: [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Deconstruciton Dinner to CJLY-FM. In addition to the above, there were a number of stories about this program in small publications in British Columbia. Another paper in Moncton listed the talk he gave there, and at least one paper in another province took note of the fund-raising bike ride. It may be that sources exist elsewhere (I stopped with after the Proquest news archive search detialed above) but I did not see enough to persuade me that this passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 31 January 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Songs

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

Non-notable album from a band who's page has just been deleted. Evking22 (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closing admin:The nominator has withdrawn the nomination. See below. Lourdes 03:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD for the band was here. There is not much coverage of this album online, however it has been nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album in 2001 (src: 1, 2, 3, 4). Technically the album passes WP:NALBUM in point 4 for notability. The same argumentation could have been made for band itself too. Dead Mary (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While perhaps in technical compliance with WP:NMUSIC#4, that merely creates a presumption that there is likely to be notability. In this case, there simply isn't any apparent evidence, in the article or in searches, of any significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My normal view is to recommend a merge to the band article, but the band article was deleted (which, I think is questionable, and I might have it userfied to work on it, actually). No !vote, as my solution is currently moot. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only was it nominated for the Grammy, it won the Best Historical Recording award at the Native American Music Awards.[5] Here's some more coverage on the album.[6] In my opinion, these are the cases why NMUSIC has been made. NMUSIC points to the probability of general notability coverage existing or coming up in the future. For example, Veterans has been covered significantly by University and college magazines[7][8], has featured in the listings of multiple books, encyclopedias and Billboard publications.[9][10][11] Of course, while the university publications are significant coverage, they don't perhaps qualify pristinely on our reliable source requirements, and while publications like Billboard magazine are reliable, the mention is just in a listing. I would suggest giving this article some more time. Veterans qualifies on NMUSIC and we should appropriately support the existence of such cultural benchmarks for a part of our less represented population. Lourdes 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Evking22 to enquire if they'll consider withdrawing the Afd nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 03:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm now seeing that this band's album could be worked on a bit. The band itself could be added back again if we have the proper sources to identify it as being notable. I officially withdraw my nomination for deletion. Evking22 (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the gracious move. Lourdes 03:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Lingner

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

I don't think this performer is up to the level of notability called for under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. There is a little bit of focused coverage in possibly suitable sources, such as [12], but that's a hometown local weekly), and [13], but that article "originally appeared in" the same hometown weekly. What coverage there is, is in connection with a single off-Broadway role for which he was nominated for, but didn't win, one award (though that's the main reason why I didn't submit for speedy deletion under A7); and, more recently, he's Ensemble and understudy. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Largoplazo (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most significant coverage is hometown coverage of his parents. Credits are all of "ensemble" or "understudy" level. Remaining sources are to bare database listings or not really about this performer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Since the two articles linked by Largoplazo are by the same author and from the same publication, they count as one source under the GNG. I couldn't find any other articles to count as a good second source. There are two articles from TheaterMania, which is probably a reliable source, but they are so short and contain so little info on Lingner that I think they fall just short of the GNG level of significant coverage. And he fails WP:ENT since his Broadway roles have all been ensemble or understudy. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:53, 29 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Rawat Arup

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

WP:BLP1E: Winner of Mrs. India 2013 fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mrs. India is a not a notable title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMrs.India is a national pageant for married women just like Miss India is for unmarried girls.Winner of Mrs.India represents India in international pageants like Mrs.World ,Mrs.Asia,Mrs.International etc.Winner of Mrs.India need not be models but they are role models & accomplished women from India who are successful in their own areas because they set an example of following their dreams by balancing both personal & professional lives & fighting the so called patriarchal system in India where women are only expected to stay home ,cook & raise children after marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcp123* (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mcp123* (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Mcp123*: Same as John Pack Lambert said above Mrs. India is a not a notable title and the subject is notable only for one event. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone and the history here confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 27 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Chukwueze

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played Nigeria's youth national teams. However, WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 20:48, 27 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ipalibo

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played Nigeria's youth national teams. However, WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 25 January 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 WP:BOLD redirect by nominator to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6)#ep142. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Where and Back Again

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

The article relies heavily on unverifiable third-party sources such as blogs and fan posts, and lacks any significant coverage from verifiable sources to warrant the page's creation. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 17:12, 23 January 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 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 23 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Callaghan

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

Largely WP:PROMO article. 2 editors have been adding promotional content that is copied and pasted from other sources. Even with this material deleted page is purely promotional and author is not notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does look like WP:PROMO and a GNG failure. South Nashua (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Kansiime (chat) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a gsearch for reviews brings up plenty, but most of them are not useable, but thank goodness for the US library system:), that shows reviews of Just Add Magic, Lost in London, Lucky Me, Lost in Paris, Lost in Rome (they may be "trade reviews" but still okay for WP:RS), and Just Add Magic appears pretty popular ie. 16 copies, none available, also kirkus has reviewed Sydney Machenzie Knocks 'Em Dead (yes i know some editors aren't comfortable with recent kirk reviews, but this one is critical - "A deeply flawed story of hidden history literally buried within a small white town."), but there is only really one review for each title so more are needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 26 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Cobras

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of three articles for this franchise, which also includes the Empire State Cobras and the Buffalo Wings. There are more than enough sources available for the franchise to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the above !votes before I looked at this and I fully expected that I would find this one to be a rare keep among the Roller Hockey articles up for deletion but what I found, or rather didn't find, makes me wonder how anybody thinks this is close to being notable.
Of the two Google News hits, one of which is for the "The 50 creepiest hockey logos of all-time (Ranking 50-26)". There are zero Google Newspapers hits. (Yes, I counted twice.) Where is the verifiability here? Was this really a professional sports team? Did nobody bother to tell their local newspapers? Two of the 6 Google Books hits are people republishing Wikipedia articles and the others look like passing mentions.
In a world where even the most minor sports news is published and devoured this team seems not to have made a ripple in the media. How can a professional sports team make money (which is what "professional" implies) if the world has never even heard of them? I see no scope that a proper referenced article could ever be made for this subject as the sources do not seem to exist. The bar is "significant coverage in reliable sources". I don't see how that can be met. I do see some justification in those arguing that the nomination should have been researched better but keeping a truly hopeless article to prove that point does not seem justifiable. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Tritons

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable team that played in a notable professional sport at the peak of its popularity. Ample sources are available to establish notability; sadly the nominator refuses to follow the obligations of WP:BEFORE. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The weakest keep possible. Nothing in Google News but the one source on the article, coupled with the mentions in the Tampa Bay Magazine found under the Google Books search are enough to make it a valid stub if the unreferenced and over-detailed cruft is removed, so I have removed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Vipers

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

Completely unsourced (for over 8 years). Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional team in the highest level league of roller hockey at a time when roller hockey was hugely popular and had games in primetime on ESPN. Notability is not temporary. Secondly this article like most of the others were not all created by one editor. The nom hasn't even done the slightest check on the article's notability, to the point where he claims one person created it when it was a completely different user. Op seems to be on a one man war to wipe out all of roller hockey from the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Barracudas

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. Also stop misinforming everyone that these articles were all created by one user as it was not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional sports teams are generally notable. Also, as Djsasso said, these articles were not all created by one user. The nominator should remember to assume good faith and not throw out incorrect accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Bulldogs

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a Professional sports team, the before deletion policy was not seen through. Not convinced this article can't just be improved, instead of being deleted.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Trout Slap It is truly disturbing to see what one editor with an axe to grind can do to destroy encyclopedic content. Every one of the articles that I have looked at as part of this March to the Sea of AfDs was sourced with minimal effort; this one was no exception. User:Zackmann08 has utterly failed to meet the obligations imposed under WP:BEFORE to "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". This and other such articles should be kept (at a minimum, on a procedural basis), and efforts should be made to find the world's largest trout for slapping purposes. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one seems adequately referenced but most of the others are not. Please do not blanket !vote Keep on all the others just to prove a point, even if that point has some merit. Many of them would only need to be AfDed again with a better nomination and we all have better things to do than think about roller hockey twice in our short lives. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 26 January 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) — Yash^talk stalk 08:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a Professional sports team, the before deletion policy was not seen through. Not convinced this article can't just be improved, instead of being deleted.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not easy to research this one as it is by very far not the most famous team with this name. (This is why you should never call your dog Elvis if you want him to be famous.) I found a couple of very weak sources that are enough to stop me !voting Delete but I didn't find any more to persuade me it could be even a weak keep but I didn't look very hard as, tbh, after looking at so many of these damn things I never want to hear of bloody roller hockey ever again. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Skates

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

Completely unsourced (for over 7 years). Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional team playing in the top league at the height of roller hockey when it was playing games on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. Clearly notable. Secondly WP:SPORTCRIT is for players not leagues and teams and says so right on it. Thirdly this article was not created by that "one" user that you keep claiming on all these noms. Nom seems to be on a crusade to remove roller hockey from the wiki completely nominating many clearly notable articles for deletion without even doing an ounce of WP:BEFORE checks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It took me a few minutes, but there were ample sources available about the team, which have been added to the article; with a bit more time (and patience) I could probably find and add dozens more. As with all of the other nominations cited above, nomination of this article for deletion utterly fails WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation that must be met before moving forward with an AfD. Sadly, Zackmann08 has ignored all of the issues raised at these AfDs, refused to withdraw nominations where articles have been improved to add easily located sources and has simply moved on to destroy other encyclopedic content at XfD, without having learned any lessons from these previous failures to observe policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep Ridiculous!! Nominated hasn't done any research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New England Stingers

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only Google News hit is Wikipedia itself. Google Newspapers finds nothing and offers up other things called "stingers" by way of apology. Enough passing mentions in Google Books to prove the team existed but nothing that shows notability. I see nothing that could be used to build up a properly referenced article on this subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 09:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Rockin Rollers

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I remembered when the team was created at the peak of hype in roller hockey and it took me just a few minutes to expand the article with some of the dozens upon dozens of sources about the team available from The New York Times. The team was active more than two decades ago and I'm sure that if I dug a bit deeper I'd be able to find, and add to the article, another couple of dozen sources. But just as easily as I found the sources, the nominator -- who seems to have prejudged the entire sport -- could have and would have found those same references. This is a complete and total failure by the nominator to meet the obligations of WP:BEFORE and to make a legitimate effort to preserve encyclopedic content. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I've generally been skeptical that many of these teams meet WP:ORG, the two most significant added cites from the NYT -- a single media outlet, to be sure, but a journal of record -- shows to me that this one is close enough to meeting GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see sources from more than one publication but the NYT is enough to keep it. Unlike most of the others up for deletion there is actually some content here worth saving. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Coasters

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It took me a few minutes, but there were ample sources available about the team, including this lengthy article in The New York Times. As with all of the other nominations cited above, nomination of this article for deletion utterly fails WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation that must be met before moving forward with an AfD. Sadly, Zackmann08 has ignored all of the issues raised at these AfDs, refused to withdraw nominations where articles have been improved to add easily located sources and has simply moved on to destroy other encyclopedic content at XfD, without having learned any lessons from these previous failures to observe policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 26 January 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) — Yash^talk stalk 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State Cobras

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am unable to find any Rs whatsoever for Empire State Cobras: fails WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] all show sources. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - One and two are good, I'd say. The rest are either non-RS or passing mentions. I think there are some notable teams that meet ORG. Not convinced this one, based in tiny Glens Falls, is one of them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of three articles for this franchise, which also includes the Phoenix Cobras and the Buffalo Wings. There are more than enough sources available for the franchise to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 17:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. As stated by User:Alansohn, there are multiple facets to this particular franchise. GauchoDude (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There are some sources available but they are very, very, thin stuff. Could this ever be more than a stub? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable and totally meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT ridiculous mistake by nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Flash

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Jawz

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything about nomination is wrong. WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, professional sports teams are notable, and pages were not all created by the same user. Stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep but not for the reasons above. Reference material is thin on the ground but there is a passing mention in the New York Times. Ironically, that is in an article about how the whole sport is (or maybe, was, as this dates to 2011) in decline[19]. That is the only Google News hit. The team seems to have lasted less than a year and its main claim to fame seems to be that it is mentioned in a lawsuit[20]. I don't see any harm in having a stub, particularly if it were referenced to those two sources, but I see zero chance that it will ever be a proper article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Blades

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional sports teams are generally notable. Also, these pages were not all created by the same user. Nominator must remember to assume good faith and not make such baseless accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Roadrunners

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though neither the English nor French article states it, the team was named for the nickname of its coach, former Habs great Yvan Cournoyer. Anyway, that bit of lore out of the way, we do still have strong one existing reliable source, this RDS retrospective. Hockey and Cournoyer being what it is in Montreal, I'm confident a good archives search could find more RS -- though those would be mainly local press, raising WP:AUD concerns. (RDS is not local. It's a national French-language sports network, though of course mainly watched in French-speaking Quebec. Still, it would satisfy AUD). There are no RS at all on the French wiki article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional team in the highest league in the sport during the height of the sports popularity with prime time games on ESPN. Easily meets GNG with looks in archives from the time. As well WP:SPORTCRIT does not apply to teams. It only applies to players as mentioned on that page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the nominator ~~is entirely~~ mainly within policy. Because Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams says that WP:ORG applies. Specifically, teams are addressed at WP:ORGCRITE. GNG does apply. There is no free pass any pro team being inherently notable. I'm not going to paste this at every Afd but @Zackmann08: is not doing anything wrong, policy-wise, that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo and Djsasso: kindly read the above and get off my back. If you disagree with my nomination, say so and discuss the article ON ITS MERITS. Stop attacking me personally and saying that I'm violating rules and policy. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are discussing the article ON ITS MERITS. Stop being so defensive. I haven't seen a single personal attack against you in any of these discussions. Criticism is not the same thing as a personal attack. Lepricavark (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except I wasn't attacking you personally. I was being critical of your actions. Those are two different things, I also never said you did anything against policy although after a number of nominations where you didn't put notices on the pages, copying the same rational to many AfDs without checking to see if they fit, prods when the articles weren't eligible for prods, misrepresenting facts, among other things it would be any easy case to make for being disruptive. However, that was before you did actually violate a guideline here and here when you WP:CANVASSed some editors. Now you have been breaking a guideline. You see just stating "comment pro or con" when you message only select people who all happened to agree with you in a previous Afd doesn't negate the canvass as that is known as votestacking. Especially when you use words like "Go Team" in regards to your deletion efforts. -DJSasso (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked for Montreal -- which maybe fares best of all the teams - and a few other franchises. I couldn't find anything else of note. To !vote keep because the nominator hasn't made a strong enough effort to search for sources that don't seem to exist doesn't seem to me to be the strongest argument. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mass-creating ~20 AfDs without doing proper research is disruptive. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect the editors in this discussion to spend the time needed to search for sources for each one of these articles individually. These articles should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but that's essentially impossible to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I am !voting keep because I don't want anything deleted without proper review. Lepricavark (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand. And I have modified my comment above to say that I think the nom was mainly policy based. He did cite GNG first and foremost. And WP:SPORTCRIT, well, that's relevant only in the section that says it isn't, and that WP:ORG applies. I'd rather like to keep the Roadrunners article for purely sentimental reasons as well as a feeling that this franchise + Cournoyer would have garnered good press back in the day. I daresay many of the teams in non-hockey markets or without notable people attached wouldn't fare so well. But if would take thorough archival searches for each and every one, as you say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added and sourced the Cournoyer content. Certainly it can expanded upon. What I am looking at is a mass of AfDs that the NOM is apparently unwilling to retract. That is not a personal attack, it is mentioning bad behavior. And since he is mentioning my name above, Note: I have not been to this article previously.Trackinfo (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The book cite you added doesn't seem to mention the nickname connection, annoyingly. But you can find that here, though it's a passing mention of the team, in terms of WP:N. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:24, 24 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Blue Ox

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Djsasso. --do ncr am 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional sports teams are notable. Also, pages were not all created by one user. Nominator should remember to assume good faith and not put out these accusations which are simply untrue. Smartyllama (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two Google News hits are about an artists group of the same name. Google Newspapers got nothing. Google Books shows that it is also the name of a bar and some other stuff sports stuff unrelated to this. It is far from clear that this team even has the strongest claim on the article title. Stripping all that out the coverage of this team is close to nothing. I don't see notability. I don't even see verifiability. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 25 January 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) — Yash^talk stalk 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Arctic Blast

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional sports teams are notable. Also, the articles were not all created by one user, and the nominator should remember to assume good faith and not make incorrect accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It is all very well for people to be criticising these identical nominations but pasting identical keep !votes on all the AfDs seems almost as bad. Are you checking each subject for notability or just !voting Keep to them all automatically? Anyway, I can't decide on this one. It would be a delete from me, as it seems to have pretty much nothing in RS coverage when I look at Google News, Newspapers and Books, except that it is mentioned in a lawsuit in which they sued their own league[21]. That probably deserves a mention, either here on in the RHI article, if only to provide a bit of interest to an otherwise tedious subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. If the nom wants each article to be reviewed on its own merits, he should not open ~20 AfDs at the same time. I am not going to search for references for each article individually, especially since the nom evidently made no such search either. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking each one individually. Most of them take less than 5 minutes (using the Google News, Newspapers and Books links provided at the top of the page) to be found clearly non-notable or clearly exceptions to the general non-notability of most things about this subject. Only a few lurking just on the edge of deserving the benefit of the doubt take longer to decide and those are the ones that I have been saying "neutral" to as I don't want to spend too long on this either. Even if the nominations were better and the AfDs grouped (which I agree would have been helpful) it would still be the case that some of the subjects would be more notable than others and so I think we would still be looking at them individually either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Jackals

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

Completely unsourced (for over 8 years). Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good coverage here, for one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see WP:SNOW Keeps. Someone is out of line. Let me explain the principle behind WP:BEFORE. A responsible editor sees a problem, does a google search on the subject (so they become educated). If the subject does not google; take action, take it to AfD. Let's get rid of the junk. If you find sources for an unsourced article, add them. Problem solved. No other editors need to get involved. Instead, this lazy NOM didn't do step 1 or 2 and caused all of us to be bothered by this. Multiply by some 20 articles all AfDed at the same time and it detracts from all our our editing time. Trackinfo (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the source that Shawn in Montreal found. There is a story to tell here. It will probably never be more than a few paragraphs but it would be slightly more than an uninformative stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. This is so obvious, why is it here? Significant coverage abounds. Jacona (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships

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

Largely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks, many of which have been deleted by WP:AFD. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off. World Championships are very clearly not trivial. Easily sourced per WP:GNG if the nom followed even the slightest WP:BEFORE process. Secondly, WP:SPORTCRIT applies to athletes not leagues or teams. Who created the articles is of little matter, many editors edit only in specific topics. For some unclear reason the nom has been trying to wipe out all inline hockey articles. Some of which are very clearly notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything DJSasso said above. Essentially none of the nom's rationale is actually applicable. Lepricavark (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size and international scope of the tournament, combined with the sources already in the article and available elsewhere, all add up to surpassing the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep World championships are clearly notable. Plenty of sources are available. Nomination is disruptive. Nominator should be ashamed. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. World championships are notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nom is on a one man wrecking crew, call it a WP:AGENDA to wipe out the existence of this sport. In the process, he is out to destroy the hard work of other editors of years past. This article has been around for more than 5 years and has had multiple editors contribute. He is using a misapplication of WP:SPORTSCRIT to misguide the discussions. The appropriate standard is WP:NSPORTS where this World Championship level event would obviously pass the notability standard. For other editors, as I dissect the damage of already deleted articles, I am having them restored to my sandbox. I don't have much editing time currently, so please feel free to look those articles up in my sandbox. User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Inline hockey restoration project Go ahead, properly add sources. Make these subjects worthy of reposting and capable of passing (or better, discouraging) any AfD. Trackinfo (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Wheels

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Team at the top level professional league during the height of roller hockey popularity with games on ESPN in prime time. Hardly trivial. Easily meets GNG with some newspaper archives from the time period. Also WP:SPORTCRIT applies to players, not leagues and teams which it mentions on its page. Also like a number of other articles in these mass nominations was not created by that "one" user. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roller Hockey International

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. League lasted only a few years. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The initial critique was that this article only had one source. In fact it had five at the time. The NOM clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE but is apparently on a one person concerted attack to delete all of this content and wipe this league from wikipedia existence. In the few minutes between when I saw the NOM's intent to take this to AfD, I added another 5 sources and still am not off of the first page of google. WP:NTEMP This league may not have become a sustaining entity but it survived for six seasons over a seven year period of time. It had one, lop sided team get close to 10,000 in attendance, meaning it was a real phenomenon. This is the master article over 28 team articles and apparently a bunch of other articles about this league which have already been deleted. Since no history is available I can't see what has already been deleted. All of this development is individually being attacked in an improper, wholesale attempt to overwhelm the system. Trackinfo (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: It did NOT have 5 at the time... You just added those 5 AFTER the page was nominated. Which is fine, but don't imply that they were there already. Additionally "HockeyDB.com" and "sportslogos.net" are not WP:RS to establish notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: What I am saying is 1) You did not look before you went on this attack. There are a lot of sources out there. And 2) in that blind rage to delete this content, you are doing a mass deletion piecemeal. You are deliberately and improperly overwhelming the system. That is not the way to do such a thing and as an experienced editor you should know better. This should be part of a wider RfC on the wholesale concept. Stop all of these individual AfDs and redirect to a wholesale discussion. Trackinfo (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the major league of roller hockey. It had a national prime time spot in the US. There are hundreds if not thousands of sources that can be easily found for this. The nom has been on a crusade to delete all inline hockey articles. At this point I am seriously considering this to be at a disruptive editing situation. Did you even remotely try to fulfill WP:BEFORE when nominating? -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This huge mass of AfDs is not the right course of action. Lepricavark (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I just want to point out that I tried doing one large AFD and was attacked by multiple editors who said that these pages all needed separate AFDs.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No what they said was you didn't put the notices on each page. So a lot of things got deleted because people didn't know they were nominated. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have successfully deleted pages, which in turn leaves pages full of redlinks that also have gotten deleted. That my friend is disruptive editing. I will gladly join Djsasso in pursuing a case. Trackinfo (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What blows my mind more than anything is that he even nominated World Championships articles. Like who in their right mind would do that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I came here through the nominator's AfD for the New Jersey Rockin Rollers, where it took me seconds to find this source, which is one of dozens that are in-depth articles about the team and the league available from The New York Times. The failure to observe even the spirit of WP:BEFORE raises significant concerns regarding the legitimacy of the nominator's effort to destroy encyclopedic content about this league. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is completely ridiculous. There are ample sources available. Nominator is throwing out baseless accusations claiming all pages were created by a single user, which is completely wrong. He should be ashamed of himself. Let's close this and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (and consider this a blanket Keep for the rest of the RHI noms which are trying to nuclear option anything that used an inline skate and had a crowd watching). The United Football League (2009–12) and Fall Experimental Football League also exist just fine, even if very few followed those. Was plenty notable in its time, and notability does not expire even if we don't look back at professional roller hockey that much. It is plenty sourced and the nominator needs to definitely pursue WP:BEFORE before any future noms, and unless said departing editor was creating complete falsehoods (and here the editor was an IP back when they could create an article, so yeah, disqualifying that), there should never be a cause to delete articles just because the creating editor departed the project. Nate • (chatter) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is definitely scope to make this a shorter and better article by losing the unreferenced cruft but the subject itself is perfectly valid and there is enough source material for a well referenced article if anybody wants to write one. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Better referencing required but professional sports leagues meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 26 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss Jet

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

Company is not yet in business. Sources do not establish corporate corporate notability because they are what the company writes about itself, not what others write about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received coverage in various industry publications, in addition to the references in article see this from Aviation International News and this from Aviation Week. All are from independent publications and have the company in question as the primary focus, satisfying WP:GNG and the depth clause of WP:CORP, and none of these are self published, all the articles carry bylines from independent authors instead of a PR company, fulfilling the independence clause of WP:CORP. C628 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references that aren't purely PR based announcements? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources based on press releases aren't reliable. The GNG isn't met. I appreciate that the creator of the article wants it to be retained but let's get serious - it's a small private charter service, it's not a commercial airline. "Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" is what the GNG requires, not a bunch of PR department-produced "press". Exemplo347 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I question again how you can come to the conclusion that the sources presented are publicity materials—if they were reprinted press releases as is often done I would agree with you, but they were all written by independent authors in multiple separate publications. In fact, if you could provide evidence that the sources are merely reworded press releases I would appreciate it, because ironically the company itself seems to be using third party coverage in lieu of press releases. I also do not agree that the size of a company has any relevance to its notability. C628 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple - the article you've created is based on, and is referenced to, interviews with the person running the proposed air charter service. Those interviews are not Independent Sources by long-standing convention here. Furthermore, the two links you've posted here are also based on interviews with the same person. I don't see how an experienced editor could have tripped up like this. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an inclusionist. I don't think it's a trip up at all, but I'm fully aware my opinion with regards to notability is sometimes more liberal than others. C628 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with being an inclusionist, but, when considering Notability, the guidelines at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND both specifically rule out the types of sources you have provided. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose we have different interpretations. C628 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not operating, not notable. No objection to a re-written article if both these criteria were to change.--Petebutt (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. It is a promotional corporate puff piece. -- HighKing⁺⁺15:05, 28 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet Visual Arts

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. PROD removed by page creator with no statement. —swpb^T 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's also unambiguous advertising and I've placed a G11 tag on it accordingly. He has no right to remove such tags and I'll watch the page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but only after 25th this time; I have been asked by the page creator to assist and am happy to make the effort.Mark^Dask 16:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, from what I can see thus far, like putting lipstick on a pig. The problem to me seems to be an utter lack of notability in RS -- not a cleanup issue. But of course it's your time to spend as you see fit. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Shawn. I first heard of this editor in December last when he tried to put his village Bahanaga on the map. The article was very poor, so I rewrote it, added pushpin, coordinates, refs, and I even managed to identify the local language, (Oriya), so I could add the translation in the infobox. I detest advertizing on Wikipedia, but I'm happy to assist a newb, with little command of English, when his purpose is only to get his small corner of the planet identified on wikipedia. I had only been addressing the article for 1 hour 20 minutes when you posted, so patience - please. Mark^Dask 19:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find sufficiently noteworthy secondary sources but they simply don't exist, so yes, delete. Mark^Dask 12:05, 25 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derek DeBlois

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Nowhere close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched, and it was full of passing mentions. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any anything that would indicate a pass for WP:GNG and he fails WP:NHOCKEY -DJSasso (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I came up with him being a solid, but not award-winning player at Michigan and a member of the USA (gold medal) team in the 2009 World Junior A Challenge, neither of which meets WP:NHOCKEY standards; he currently plays tier 2 German hockey, and is unlikely to move up. I have vetted him as carefully as I could. Bill McKenna (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. He just doesn't come close to meeting any of the criteria needed for an article. Deadman137 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabanelka

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

According to the creator of the article, Fabanelka (or Fabenelka, see history) played for a well known team in 2016. However, Google shows zero hits for the name, and for alternative spellings. There's one Ghanese player nicknamed 'Anelka'; he died in 2015 though. IMirjamI (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Hoax gallery is only for pages which survived at least a year or were covered in mainstream sources, this only survived about six months. Shame it lasted even that long. Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 23 January 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. The consensus is not to delete, therefore a default keep. Merge or other similar actions can be discussed separately. Tone 09:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania at the 2016 European Athletics Championships

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

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [22], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

[reply]

230 more nominations
Please view the AfD page for the full list of additional nominations.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - These should should be judged on their notability individually - Mass nominating all 230 articles is just plain disruptive!, Also I've collapsed them as they were taking up half of the AFD log!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the prior examples above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (if there is a parent article). It is high time we started dealing with sport-spam - it gets enough exceptions as it is. Unless someone can show how this passes notability, well, byebye. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is the kind of spam information that doesn't warrant its own article and will likely never be looked at in its current form. Laurdecl ^talk 09:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at the 2014 European Athletics Championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EAC is a high-profile, high-level competition, and I don't think these articles are overkill. They "make sense" by serving a useful purpose: extracting information about whatever e.g. Albania achieved in the 80-year or so history of the EAC is something a reader might legitimately be interested in, yet is extremely hard to do using just articles on individual editions. Merging into e.g. Albania at the European Athletics Championships is a remote possibility, but since EAC is a multi-event championship with 23 editions thus far, this is bound to create huge and unwieldy articles. GregorB (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable enough competition that these kinds of things are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Preemptively relisting this because the Jan 9 AfD log hit the transclusion limit, which caused the contents of this AfD to not be shown in the log. T. Canens (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Nation at European Athletics Championships" articles. Individual country performances at a single edition are not of note in themselves. The history of the country at the competition as a whole certainly is as these performances form a key part of countries' athletics history. The competition spent much of its history at the second most important athletics meet after the Olympics and remains a key competition for a region which created and excels at the sport. A topic of much national importance and note. SFB 00:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per GregorB. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easy to see that at least one of these articles meets WP:GNG - [23] - I'm not willing to check the other 229. Nfitz (talk) 01:37, 24 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Agrawal

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

Lack of notability. XXN, 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- read and looks like spam on an unremarkable businessperson. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a run-of-the-mill entrepreneur; the notability of his company is doubtful but even if it is notable that wouldn't automatically make its co-founders notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:25, 29 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major Samuel Morrow

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

Wholly non-notable; Google, Google Books, and Jstor searches find minimal information on any Samuel Moore of the time period listed GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's because you misspelled his name? It's "Morrow", not "Moore". The correct one seems to yield notability. Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mis-spelling in the edit summary, there was a floating text block blocking my view, and I tried to put the edit summary in blind. Samuel Morrow is indeed mentioned in passing in a number of religious history books, but as far as notability, I don't see it. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He was a church elder and fought in the Revolution. Nothing wrong with that but I don't see see anything notable.Glendoremus (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable; per GNG and WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not demonstrate notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:55, 25 January 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 (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 06:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Joshi (Baal Veer)

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 12:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied the article under G5 criteria as it was created by a sock account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 25 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leas House School

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

Non-notable preparatory school (UK sense, ie to age 13) with one court case. Does not seem notable enough for an article. PamD 11:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. Before someone comes along and says that "schools are always notable" let me pre-emptively say that you'll need to provide verifiable references to prove that this particular establishment meets the requirements. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+comment. Considering the court case was about corporal punishment, I would like this artto stay for awhile until it can be figured out what the implications were for corporal punishment in the U.K. There is the potential that the case had some influence. Considering the article and stub is new, I would like the article to stay for awhile to give editors an opportunity to improve it. If it turns out this is all there is, it can always be deleted but at least we have an opportunity to improve it. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources aren't out there, beyond this single newspaper article. What possible purpose can be served by retaining this? Have you found any additional reliable sources to support your suggestion? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A head master was sued unsuccessfully 71 years ago. I don't think we want to consider preparatory schools notable simply because one of their administrators has been unsuccessfully sued. In any case this subject lacks the coverage needed for notability. Corporal punishment was not banned until 1987 ([[24]]) in the U.K. That's 43 years later which makes it very unlikely this incident is a significant factor in it's history. Gab4gab (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable primary, as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES No encyclopaedic content worth merging. CalzGuy (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as our past AfD show. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based reasons for keeping the article have been provided. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular hydrogen therapy

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

Fringe nonsense by a WP:SPA, replete with WP:SYN. No reality-based sources seem to support this conjecture (not hypothesis). Guy (Help!) 11:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete A bit hard to search but an article sourced entirely from research papers from a small group of researchers is not appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone noticed the talk page I created with multiple other sources lacking in topics of the article, and high IF replicated studies on topics not discussed. This page could use many many edits but I have a COI and cannot/should not. Happy to provide sources. As for no 'reality based sources' I am unsure what that means, and will add their are published studies in Nature Medicine, Science and Circulation among many other reputable journals. As for reputable teams from large institutions:

The Lucas Group at the Max Planck Institute is pursuing molecular hydrogen as a radical scavenger in diseases as one of their key topics

http://www.mpic.de/en/research/multiphase-chemistry/lucas-group.html

Dr Banks from the University of Washington http://depts.washington.edu/geront/banks.html sits as a Senior advisor of the non-profit molecular hydrogen foundation in the US ::http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/board/william-allen-banks/ and has published this article on traumatic brain injury in PLoS One

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176020/

Dr Garth Nicolson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_L._Nicolson published the review article that was deleted from this topic regarding cancer patients and radiotherapy. Not sure why the statement was linked to his review, when the original source, this 49 patient randomized controlled study, would have been a better reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22146004

Dr Jan Slezak who also sits as a senior advisor at the MHF http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/board/dr-slezak/

"For 10 years, he served as Director of the Institute for Heart Research, Slovak Academy of Sciences and later 11 years as the first Vice-President of the Slovak Academy of Sciences." ::http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?jan-slezak-honoured-by-bratislava-slovakia

He speaks about the potential of molecular hydrogen therapy in this review article, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjpp-2015-0006#.WIY-2RsrK01 published in the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, while you will need to buy the full article unless subscriptions are present, you can easily find a handful of his references are regarding molecular hydrogen therapy articles.TarnavaA (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — TarnavaA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:GNG and unencyclopaedic per WP:FRINGE. As a side note, creating new accounts just to post walls of text isn't going to achieve anything positive. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why posting references to add more information won't achieve anything positive. As for not notable/fringe, looked up the definitions on wiki so here are secondary sources from legitimate news sources talking about it. https://pulmonaryhypertensionnews.com/2014/09/26/molecular-hydrogen-water-protects-pulmonary-hypertension/ https://www.gasworld.com/h2-inhalation-research-shows-promise-in-japanese-hospitals/2010537.articlehttps://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-anti-aging-properties-hydrogen-rich-periodontal-tissues.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiatoday/hydrogen-water-could-help_b_11770700.html

I understand that it has it's own page which may be the issue. Many other therapeutic references to molecules with 1/100th the study or less(often a single rodent study) are posted as sub sections of the main article. TarnavaA (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — TarnavaA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you please keep your remarks short? You mention above that you have a Conflict of Interest here. Can you explain, very specifically, what your conflict of interest is? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI: I have international patents filed for a tablet that creates super saturated levels of H2 in water in minutes, as well as other int patents filed for various devices relating to hydrogen rich water and manufacturing techniques to do it. TarnavaA (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your conflict of interest basically means that you're not commenting with a neutral point of view. You have a direct financial interest in the continued existence of this article, meaning your comments will be given less weight than someone who is independent of the subject. I'd also like to point out that none of the references you have provided represent the Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources that Wikipedia requires. You need to read WP:COI and WP:GNG. Wikipedia does not exist to provide free advertising space. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I am not sure what you are implying. This is neither my article, nor am I convinced it was properly posted. I am simply adding a body of evidence that was lacking, and no one else had bothered looking into or verifying. The very first thing I wrote was that I have a COI. I also commented that this may be better suited in a more condensed version as a subsection of the H2 page, as is the case with many other molecules that have 1/100th of the research and published articles. I can give many examples. TarnavaA (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying - I'm directly stating that your conflict of interest means that you are not able to give a neutral point of view. These discussions are based purely on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, nothing more. "Molecular hydrogen therapy," as a concept, does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. The links you have provided either completely fail to use the phrase "Molecular hydrogen therapy" or mention it purely in passing - that's not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated 'advertising.' Again, I will say that this subject is more suitable as a sub section of the H2 page. Ample studies exist for the topic to be touched on briefly. Many molecules have a single study, in rodents, in a low impact factor journal, which is mentioned on the wikipedia page in a sub section. I started the talk page to offer higher quality studies for a NEUTRAL party to edit before it was nominated for deletion. TarnavaA (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if the time comes when "Molecular hydrogen therapy" becomes notable, someone totally unconnected with it will create an article. At this present moment, the guidelines aren't met. There's not even enough independent sourcing to justify adding this concept to the article about Hydrogen at the moment. You'll have to be patient - currently it's nothing more than a fringe concept. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't create this article and do not know who did. I came to address errors in the articles design and offer sources to higher IF replicated articles. I agree that this page does not meet the thresholds. If there is any consistency in Wikipedia it absolutely meets the threshold to be a sub section in the H2 page. TarnavaA (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has said that you created this article so let's just put an end to that. As for the Hydrogen article - it's a Featured Article, and as such the threshold for inclusion is strictly enforced. There's no way a Fringe theory could be added to that article without it being immediately reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand the threshold then, or how a featured article differs from a normal article and to what extent research needs to be done. With over 600 published articles, 40~ clinical trials, several large scale clinical trials under way and published articles in journals such as Nature Medicine, Science and Circulation... the evidence threshold is 100x higher than the evidence presented in these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinamide_riboside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrroloquinoline_quinone that isn't even mentioning the paid studies included above, and the fact that the NR page is a half advertisement for chromadex. TarnavaA (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you have just linked to have a huge variety of coverage, meaning that they meet the General Notability Guidelines that I have already taken care to point out to you. You really should take the time to actually read the guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did. it says significant secondary source coverage. I did not see a definitive measure of what constitutes significant. The majority of the news surrounding NR is regarding Chromadex announcing it's own studies, so self propogated publicity, or mostly negative publicity regarding the brand Elysium. TarnavaA (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is the key word there - not passing mentions - and the argument that other articles are weak has no effect here - this discussion is about this article specifically. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

when a definition in terms of acceptance is subjective, the question of why the weaker sourcing has been accepted for article A but stronger evidence proposed under the same subsection parameters for article B is flat out rejected is a legitimate one to ask and can lead to a better udnerstanding of said subjective terms, which you were quick to point to. I presume consistency is deemed important. TarnavaA (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, this discussion is about this article, in isolation, and not about any other article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pertinent here. I don't want to keep repeating the same answers to you over and over again, so feel free to read them again at your leisure if you're going to keep asking the same questions. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that I would argue WP:Bias, as found in the huffington post article I linked in Japan over 10% of the bottled water industry is now hydrogen rich water, and the inhalation devices are being widely used in hospitals. Hydrogen rich water has it's own Japanese wiki page, not even considering h2 inhalation and saline TarnavaA (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't give any significant coverage to "Molecular hydrogen therapy" as a concept. That's the problem here, which I've already pointed out to you very clearly. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100s of secondary source news articles can be posted in Japanese and Korean if I'm understanding the WP:Bias properly. TarnavaA (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them give significant coverage to "Molecular hydrogen therapy" - specifically this - and not just the surrounding theories that may or may not be connected? Come on, this is quite simple and it shouldn't need me to repeat it so many times. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I google translated to Japanese and search google news then reverse translated to English, these two come up this month about Japan's recognition of H2 inhalation devices as advanced medical equipment. I emailed a colleague in Japan to send over relevant secondary source news articles. http://mainichi.jp/articles/20170124/ddm/013/040/006000c http://news.cnw.com.cn/news-china/htm2017/20170105_337574.shtml TarnavaA (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want an article about Hydrogen-rich water to exist, you should head over to Wikipedia:Requested articles and request an article about that concept. THIS article is specifically about "Molecular hydrogen therapy" as a concept. The two things may be connected but they are NOT interchangeable terms. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is part of the deletion process not suggesting different topic names and modifications? That is right at the top of the wikipedia deletion page. TarnavaA (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am proposing the name be changed. I would suggest 'Biological effects of Molecular Hydrogen' as a neutral name. As for hydrogen rich water vs inhalation vs saline, many drugs and other products have many different delivery methods, oral, injection etc and DO NOT have different wiki entries for different delivery methods, and different delivery methods are known to have different side effects and efficacy targeting certain pathologies. By your remarks, both hydrogen rich water and hydrogen inhalation possess the required threshold of reliable, replicated research sources and significant secondary source attention to justify an article. It would be silly to have them as separate articles. Here are more news articles, a great benefit of Wikipedia is to give reliable, neutral sources of information rather than the awful information present in some of these news articles:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3987238/Forget-juice-cleanse-new-celebrity-health-craze-HFactor-hydrogen-rich-water-Blake-Lively-Ryan-Reynolds-sipping-benefits.html

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11597042

http://www.allure.com/story/hfactor-hydrogen-water-review

I can continue posting more articles and reiterating that the name can and should be changed, and much of the information present can and should be edited and cleaned up.

TarnavaA (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note At no point have I said that this unproven fringe theory deserves its own article, so I don't know how you could have got that impression & I'm astounded at the mischaracterisation of my remarks. It definitely does not deserve one - Wikipedia does not give undue weight to conjecture-based ideas that have not been proven to be anything more than placebo effect-driven fads. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the high impact factor articles? Replicated studies consisting of human trials, in high impact factor journals? I posted several on the talk page. Do you have any expertise or background knowledge of any kind to form your statement? I got that idea from your statements. 100's of articles from Many research teams, numerous clinical trials and replicated studies in high IF journals meets a threshold for discussion and is well beyond countless articles on wiki. Secondary sources became the issue, to which many were linked and I could link 100 more. The exact phrasing 'molecular hydrogen therapy' became your next point as articles spoke specifically to H2 inhalation or hydrogen rich water. I addressed that and added that a name change is warranted. Now it's gone round about and you're dismissing the science baselessly, at this point I'm going to add presumably without bothering to read any of it or possessing the ability to interpret it even if you had. TarnavaA (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Aranda Pertile

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

Non-notable person. Most of the included references are unreliable. XXN, 11:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Illustrator who seems to have a few commissions but nothing noteworthy. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear case of WP:TOOEARLY. In time, he will gain more notability with reviews and exhibitions, but not now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:18, 30 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most viewed Arabic video

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

The reference does not show the whole list. The creator seems to have searched every single video and then listed it by himself. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary thing created by one person's opinion. Also "Arabic music video" is not a notable thing, any more than "List of French youtube videos" would be. ValarianB (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author is clearly doing their own research.Glendoremus (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - several concerns including blatant OR, misleading title (the article is specifically about music videos but the title doesn't tell us this), fails WP:LISTN due to no reliable sources covering this and, lastly, it would require constant updating. Inclusion criteria is also a bit wishy washy Spiderone 21:23, 30 January 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) — Yash^talk stalk 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of businesses in Omaha

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

This is an indiscriminate directory of businesses that happen to be located in, or have their headquarters in, the same city - WP:NOTDIRECTORY points 3, 4, and 7 explicitly say that this sort of page is not encyclopaedic. There is no source that treats a business being located in Omaha as a defining feature of a business any more than any other location (contrary to WP:LISTN and possibly WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 6). There are four citations given, one is about Warren Buffett (only tangentially relevant to the topic of the list), the other three are solely to verify that a non-notable business is located in Omaha. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN, this list has a well-defined inclusion criteria, serves as a useful navigation tool, takes the place of a list as a part of the Economy of Omaha article, and similar lists can be found in reliable sources, such as regional trade magazines and newspapers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP. The nominator seems to be confused about the purpose of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy; it was created to avoid Wikipedia become a poor, badly maintained copy of the original Yahoo or DMOZ, i.e. a partial, incomplete listing of links to external websites or entities. The nominated article is no such thing: it is a list of Wikipedia articles about companies, not a mere listing of companies. That makes all the difference, as the purpose of the list is to allow readers to reach the relevant article (i.e. no different to a category, and therefore allowed per WP:NOTDUPE)

Surely there's a couple of red links here and there in the list, though those have always been considered request for someone to create the article. If there are entries without a wikilink, those could be removed, but I don't think there are. Diego (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- How is this any different to a DMOZ list of companies in Omah that have Wikipedia articles (along with some that don't, and some that might have in future)? Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because DMOZ is not restricted to companies that are subject of encyclopedic coverage, and this Wikipedia list is. (Which BTW means that there should only be red links for companies that would merit a Wikipedia article, per WP:REDLINK). Being a navigational aid within the project to index its content is an accepted purpose for Wikipedia lists per the WP:LISTPURP guideline. Diego (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diego Moya has a very good rationale for keeping this list. Most all of these items in the list are blue linked articles. A very few have red links. I think this is probably the most acceptable kind of list article that we have on Wikipedia. If this was a list that had no blue links, then serious pruning would be in order, and even deletion would be a possibility,. Also, because most all of these are blue linked, this means the articles are already sourced (supposedly), and therefore the list satisfies the criteria for inclusion across core content policies. Sometimes it is refreshing to come a across an article at AfD, such as this, which is a slam dunk. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The majority of the entries do have WP articles, but for those that don't, per LISTCOMPANYA company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. I'm not seeing anything in WP:NOT that clearly overrules this, and if we don't want such lists to remain we'll have to get the policies and guidelines changed: Noyster (talk), 15:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has to be encyclopaedic, not just the contents, otherwise any list of X in Y would be suitable for Wikipedia, regardless of any other consideration but that is clearly incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list index of available encyclopedia content is encyclopedic. Diego (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- LISTN requires stand alone lists to have been discussed as a group by reliable sources? I don't see any evidence in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strictly speaking, being discussed as a group is "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable" per WP:LISTN, not a requirement.

LISTN also says that "There is no present consensus for ... what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". Diego (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at this is - this can be viewed as a spinoff article and article that is related to "Economy of Omaha, Nebraska", which has been previously mentioned (above). So in essence, this topic has been discussed as a group, in a general way in the article entitled "Economy of Omaha, Nebraska". It can be seen that it is not necessary to look for reliable sources that cover the intro for this list article due to these circumstances. This list article and the "Economy" article seem to directly correlate to each other. Also, it seems that it would be easy enough to copy some of the refs, as needed, from the "Economy" article for the intro of the list article - I would guess. I haven't really taken a serious look at those references yet. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR per nom, no significance for this topic, could easily develop into unneeded WP:LISTCRUFT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}04:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit of good faith should be applied here as the article title is misleading. It isn't just a indiscriminate list of businesses in Omaha (of which I would most certainly support deletion) but it really a list of notable companies or corporations that are centered in Omaha. I support renaming the article to suit the lists true purpose The outlying issue is that the list has been used for promotional by local businesses - I recently culled a good number of them, and could probably do plenty more, but this is really just a cleanup issue that can be easily maintained. So long as there is enough notable companies to be included in the list criteria, it passes WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was carefully created to begin with. This is another indiscriminate Afd that demonstrates systemic bias against Omaha, Nebraska because it's in a fly-over state. Although I know we don't compare in AfDs, I think its worth noting that Chicago, Seattle and Dallas-Fort Worth all have identical lists, and they're all in similar formats. • Freechild | talk to me 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination has nothing to do with bias against Nebraska or anywhere else. It's simply the only list of this nature that I was aware of when I made the nomination (it's the only such article named "List of businesses in <city>"). Having now looked at those other lists I think they are just as unencyclopaedic as this one is. The lead section of the Seattle article is good prose and belongs in an article about the area. Similarly the list of Fortune 500 companies in Dallas could be a significant, discriminate list if there was a little bit of prose about why such companies have chosen to base themselves there (and if there were any citations that would be a bonus). Listing the hundreds or maybe thousands of other companies in these large metropolitan areas can never be anything more than a directory of businesses - even if restricted to those with Wikipedia articles there is no link between their notability and their location in most cases so it's not a relevant categorisation. As for being an extension of the economy article - nice theory but it would still need to add something encyclopaedic that was too large to include, but it doesn't it's just a directory. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-organized list of notable businesses in a well-defined area. This is exactly what lists are for. Per the editing guideline WP:CLN, lists and categories are intended to co-exist and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Irrational fears inspired by the essay WP:LISTCRUFT are hardly a justification for deletion; for that matter, *every* list must be deleted lest LISTCRUFT become a problem once we take this to its illogical conclusion. Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another perfectly viable list co-existing alongside Category:Companies based in Omaha, Nebraska, per policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Companies based in Omaha, Nebraska. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of blue links on the list, so its an acceptable Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 12:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is certainly not indiscriminate--it is limited to the ones that are notable enough to have WP articles. Lists and categories serve complementary functions--a category is automatically populated and very compact; a list however gives some indication of what the subject is. If you are want to look at articles of some particular type of companies in Chicago, a list lets you select them. If you don't know the exact name, a list helps you find it. If, , you are looking for potentially dubious articles, or articles worth upgrading, a list helps you screen them DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 27 January 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. It would, however, be helpful if any of the editors advocating to keep the article would assist in editing to add independent sources. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bartercard

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

Does not appear to be substantially notable. All references are to own website or press releases. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Bartercard has quite a lot of hits on google news from reliable sources (when you sift through sporting sponsorship mentions) so I think notability is there, but as the editor points out, none of them are used as sources in the article and in parts it is written like an advertisement. Not opposed to any editor doing a rewrite or adding in reliable sources, but it may be potentially easier to start again. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance please. I could only find four independant reliable secondary potential references. Could you please list some of what your found for me. Aoziwe (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are definitely there, but as Whats new? says, the article needs a rewrite. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage, even considering the lack online resources from the peak of its attention. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 26 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bagdasarian Productions

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

The article has two references no NYT (an no other references), but it looks like WP:ONEVENT: the company founded by the son of the Chipmunk creator sued someone over the proprietary rights. We have Ross Bagdasarian Jr., the article about the owner.Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't stop you if you must, but please move information as appropriate to articles on Alvin and the Chipmunks, Ross Bagdasarian Sr. & Jr., Pettunia Media, and export as needed to http://alvin.wikia.com/ . - knoodelhed (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not individually notable; all relevant content can be covered in the main article (my redirect was reverted by a fan without explanation). User:Scott Sanchez, it is not the nominator or the closing administrator's responsibility to move material to a fan site. The main "Alvin" article is bloated already, and seems to contain enough relevant material. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is essentially a duplicate of Alvin and the Chipmunks. This topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG as notability is not inherited so a redirect is not appropriate. -- HighKing⁺⁺15:04, 28 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KYE Systems Corp.

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

Non notable company, relies too much on primary sources, list is not good, most of article is about Genius, not KYE Systems Corp., and I think this is enough for deletion. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can a company with a "sales revenue of $353 million in 2005" not be notable? "most of article is about Genius, not KYE Systems Corp." As there isn't a separate article for Genius, perhaps WP:RM is the answer. Timmyshin (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just having a third of a billion revenue does not alone grant notability, but this company has been so large for very long (albeit in an unsexy business, and not in the USA). The article does need work to be more encyclopedic, instead just a list of promotional bullets. For example, I fairly quickly found a controversy from its days doing manufacturing for Microsoft: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2010/04/13/labor-group-chinese-teens-like-prisoners-in-microsoft-tech-factory/ There is a stand-alone article on Mouse Systems which has historical value, acquired by KYE 27 years ago. It also does seem that the original name for this article was Genius (company) moved here in 2010. W Nowicki (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too spammy to consider worth keeping. The content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the two comments, one of which confirms this current article is unacceptable, simply ascertain the company must be notable but there's nothing genuine for satisfying our policies, this article is complete advertising complete with the blatant sections and PR sources alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(Updated below) The is a large company and genius is one unit of it. They have lots of sub-units and a couple of them were covered in NYTimes for labour exploitation issues. I can work a bit on this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it may be difficult to maintain neutrality as there's possibly COI editing going on Special:Contributions/Raul464. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On Second thoughts. I spend some time today trying to find reliable secondary sources. Surprisingly there were like none (and I have no idea why). While this company might be a large corporation, if there are no third party sources, it is difficult to write an NPOV article per WP:WHYN. Accordingly, I think I will go with a TNT delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm starting to see a number of articles with "Delete" comments stating that the article is "too promotional for Wikipedia". That is *not* a reason to delete an article. The only question we need consider is whether the topic is noteworthy and meets GNG. There are far too many articles with this comment and it is due to a misunderstanding of policy and a misinterpretation of same. Obvious promotional content should be removed - and that's what the policy WP:NOT is about. -- HighKing⁺⁺22:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article is terrible but the topic is notable and is not made any easier by the fact that one of KYE's companies is probably better known as a brand that the parent - that being the "Genius" and the Mouse Systems Corp. brand (which has its own article). Also there is every possibility that other published sources exist in other languages. Nonetheless, there are sufficient independent third party sources just for KYE that get it over the GNG line

There's a number of books that discuss a sweatshop scandal that says photographs were smuggled out of KYE Systems in the south of China where teenagers are shown making optical mice for Microsoft (as mentioned above by Lemongirl942). For example Living Green by Kathlyn Gay, American Dissidents by Kathlyn Gay and World Humanism by S. Khan and W. Amann and website such as The Daily Mail (UK) and The New York Times.
Here's a random review of one of their products by an independent third party publisher (Computer Shopper). And here's another. Tons of these but they demonstrate the products are notable.
Here's KYE Systems history with notable acquisitions and awards. -- HighKing⁺⁺22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not that the company is a small company - it is that there are hardly any reliable secondary third-party sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I am aware that the company makes computer peripherals. However, the only coverage about it seems to be solely about the Microsoft scandal and that too a very brief mention (you can see that every source above only talks about this one incident and that too it is mostly about Microsoft, with a passing mention of KYE). There is literally nothing else available. The reviews about the mice are in websites which we consider unreliable sources and do not contain any information about the company. This falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The coverage in the links to the books I provided meet the criteria set out in WP:RS and they are as much about KYE Systems involvement as they are about Microsoft and they are more than a passing reference.
I also disagree with your statementwhich we consider unreliable sources. I am very much aware of the criteria (both policy and guidelines) and both ComputerShopper and IXBTlabs are reliable and independent third party. Can you please provide another AfD where these websites were considered unreliable? The reviews demonstrate that the products are known and reliable.
Finally, I reiterate that the sole question being asked at AfD is whether a topic is notable. You appear to concede that the topic is notable, albeit that sources are hard to come by (in English with the standard alphabet and online). On the balance of probabilities, there are more sources available in other languages and in other alphabets. On the balance of probabilities, given the age of the company and its pre-internet existence, there are sources available that are not online. Finally, given the sources I've already provided above with minimal effort, while the article is poorly written and the sources are barely sufficient to establish notability, I believe it meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺11:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my analysis of the book sources. None of that meets the indepth coverage required in WP:CORPDEPTH.
However for IXBTlabs I do not see any indication of editorial control. As for ComputerShopper, yes, the review seems to be done by a staff editor. However, I do not see any indepth coverage about the company here.
Notability is not the sole thing to debate at AFD - we have deleted articles for multiple reasons - promotional content, blp reasons, not enough sources. Notability is not the only reason for deletion. And the essential thing about notability that I use is WP:WHYN. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources talking about the subject, we should not have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Analysis of Book sources

Gay, Kathlyn. Living Green: The Ultimate Teen Guide. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810877016. Brief mention of KYE 1-2 sentences Literally nothing about the company except 1 sentence that Microsoft outsourced production
Gay, Kathlyn. American Dissidents: An Encyclopedia of Activists, Subversives, and Prisoners of Conscience. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781598847642. Brief mention of KYE itself Same as above (and it is about the same incident) I get no information except that KYE manufactures products for microsoft
Khan, S.; Amann, W. World Humanism: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Ethical Practices in Organizations. Springer. ISBN 9781137378491. One sentence coverage That's all.

None of the above is significant coverage which can be used for the purposes of WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that notability cannot be inherited from association with another company or event. Over here, the kind of coverage is the WP:NOTNEWS kind -essentially the only coverage available is related to the single incident. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Series Three, Episode Twenty (Waterloo Road)

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

Non notable episode, Considering the show went on for 9 series' without individual episode articles I'm abit miffed as to why this was ever created, Anyway only links i'm, finding are DVD related, Nothing to merge and redirect is a bit pointless seeing as only one episode article out of 200 exist, ANyway Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails [WP:GNG]]. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Google and HighBeam searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 03:56, 26 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Letter Game

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

Delete. As per the notability tag on the article since it was created, this is not notable. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability Siuenti (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's interesting, but just not really all that notable as there just hasn't been any true coverage for this. I was going to suggest a merge into the main article for the first game, like maybe a subsection about spinoffs by the game's creators, but it looks like The Game (treasure hunt) has its own notability issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced; overtly promotional DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:53, 23 January 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 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton

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

This is about an event that is never going to happen. It is thus not noteable. If anything, it should probably be redirected to the article on Hillary's campaign. Jtrainor (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL; never occurred, and therefore serves as pure speculation. Don't redirect to the article on the campaign as the activities of the campaign would be entirely separate from the organization of the inauguration by committee. Mélencron (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) (struck as erroneous vote by user)[reply]
Keep the related deletion discussion for Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney) notes that "planning" occurred even if the "transition" didn't - this article also appears to be about the "planning" as opposed to the "transition" and the "planning" was a notable, multi-million dollar project that generated standalone coverage in RS DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This very short stub can easily be made a section of the campaign article. Failing that, delete as not independently notable. Only 1 of the sources is actually specifically about Clinton's transition. The rest are generic "transition to whoever the next president is" articles, which would actually be more appropriate to be umbrella-ed somewhere under Obama as a function of his outgoing administration. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to redirect, except my own search indicates there is a lot of expansion that can be done to this article, though I otherwise agree with you that it's not in a good state at present. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modern presidential transitions are inherently notable, even for the losing candidate. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney. A decision that was reinforced by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump. As was made clear in those two discussions, the process of planning a presidential transisiton is a significant act of governance in its own right. The professionalim of the transition teams has an enduring impact. And because it is so important (especially since the 2 recent federal reform acts funding and smoothing the process by such official aid as permitting security clearances on nominees ot begin as soon as the vote is taken at the party nominating convention,) the transition planning of both candidates come in for ongoing press and academic scrutiny. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC) @ResultingConstant and Jtrainor: Requesting that you take a moment to look at the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump, where the issues you raise are discussed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - This material is best merged into the Clinton campaign article. Planned events do not make history. Same goes for the Romney transition. Bcharles (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to campaign article. — JFG ^talk 16:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to campaign article. Considering how divided both candidates were on policy, the article has worthwhile information on what could have been, but since it will not actually take place there does not seem to be a viable reason to have a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to campaign article. Given how little information is here, there's not really anything worth merging. Orser67 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to campaign article. I don't think there's enough material here to justify a fork.LM2000 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nong Pee

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

Definitely doesn't satisfy association football notability. The sources don't really qualify for general notability as this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing in both standards and policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Right now the subject fails WP:1E, and it's too soon to know if he'd become notable in the future. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only known for one event Spiderone 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG CBS527^Talk 04:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:BLP1E. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly too soon for any sort of article. WP:BLP1E, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:GNG all failed. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:43, 28 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environment //+ (programming language)

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

This is probably a hoax, and is probably made up. The idea that the company wants to remain anonymous sounds like nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the purported name and the the purported anonymity, this is unsourceable. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it reads like an advertisement which fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget notability (which it apparently doesn't have, per my review), why hasn't this been speedied? Lourdes 05:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What speedy category? Software doesn't fit any of the A7 categories, because it isn't a company, person, or web content. It isn't advertising if it doesn't describe the product well enough to try to sell it. Probably hoax, but the speedy criterion is clear hoaxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was thinking of a hoax speedy. Will go by your judgement. Lourdes 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May or may not be a hoax. Some secret company may or may not be working on a new programming language. The fact is, there are no reliable sources to reference an article, even a stub. The article can be recreated if/when the project comes to fruition and if/when the product becomes notable. Neiltonks (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It indicates that the article is about a product under development which has no notability whatsoever, article is promotional and unverifiable. Fbergo (talk) 01:59, 24 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Free

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

Article was almost entirely copyvio (removed, see history). Band does not appear to be notable. Web search does not turn up coverage in reliable sources, band has not had major chart success. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Meets WP:BAND criterion #2: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason to keep an article about a band. Note the header of that section: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." (emphasis added.) It does not say "are notable".

In the header of that page, please read this: "It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed.– Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fair, the SNG criteria support the presumption of notability but do not replace the GNG. It's also true that I haven't been able to find any reviews of this band or their work in reliable sources. What I did find are three profiles of this band on what appear to be fansites: [25], [26], [27]. The danceartist page quotes an interview with Charles Simmons, but I couldn't find the interview online. The fansites are not reliable sources, but those plus the charting singles, plus the three other Wikipedias with articles on this band, plus the fact that this band was from the pre-internet era, lead me to believe that there are offline sources (probably in German or Russian) covering this band. It's all guesswork though, so I'll change my vote to a weak keep. Deleting this article would be no great loss. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The national chart hits, while not huge, demonstrate sufficient significance for inclusion. I wouldn't expect a Google search to find much on a German Euoropop group from the mid-90s, but German print coverage from the time is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The chart placings are sourced. That's enough to make the group worth including. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. See the guideline text cited above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N - notable if either the GNG or the SNG is satisfied. We have a reliable source for the chart placings, therefore the notability is documented via a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG guideline text is cited above. The article as currently written does not satisfy either GNG or the SNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but I understand the text differently - to me no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed means that you have to provide a source verifying that you've met the criteria. You can't just say a single charted, you have to source that claim. The link to Offizielle Deutsche Charts verifies the claim and thus meets the SNG. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:13, 24 January 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 Input method. The content is all there in the page history if anybody wants to carry out a merge of the article's two lines of prose. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh Input Method

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

There is no evidence that the article meets the general notability guideline. The article has been here for more than 10 years in much the same state (little more than a dictionary definition of the term), and although there is no deadline, one can infer from this that there might not be a whole lot more to say about this topic. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the idea has come and gone without much to say about it. W Nowicki (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an invalid delete argument: if the subject was notable when created then it is still notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are no independent sources certainly *IS* a valid argument. If it was not notable when it came out and is still not, does not meet our guidelines, right? That is what we are trying to determine. W Nowicki (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Input method, no evidence it is worthy of a separate article, but since we do have a relevant article, its better to merge + redirect than outright delete. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}03:28, 23 January 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. Page pass WP:POLITICIAN as the subject is a sitting member of the Kentucky House of Representatives (non-admin closure) FITINDIA (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim DuPlessis

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

Sources wasn't clearly understood fails Notability and GNG well as BIO. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 03:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. See political notability. The subject is identified as a member of a US state legislature. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. DuPlessis is a member of KY's state legislature so that alone gives him notability (political notability). In veritas (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. Seems pretty clear cut.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NPOL and speedy close this Afd. This is an investment of time of volunteers that can be used in other places. The nominator needs to get their guidelines' knowledge up to speed. Lourdes 05:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN.FITINDIA (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep A member of a US state legislature is notable Neiltonks (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Lepricavark (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above also. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOL, suggest nominator has a read of WP:OUTCOMES to see what is generally seen as notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 26 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praja Parishad Jammu and Kashmir

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

This party is not notable, and it might be defunct by now according to this news report [28]. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}03:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}03:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}03:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I don't know. State-level recognized parties should, in my opinion, have a page, whether defunct or not - something like is done with high schools. What do you say? Thanks. Lourdes 05:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can accept the argument that state-level recognized parties can have articles. But it does not meet WP:GNG in the standard sense, i.e., have at least two reliable sources that significantly cover the topic. (There might be sources that I don't have access to.) I would request the people in the know to improve the article, providing at least the minimal information, such as the dates, office bearers, elections contested etc.. If the article is destined to be a stub for ever, there would not be much point in keeping it. ~~That having said, I am happy to withdraw the nomination for now.~~ -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another option is to merge it into the article on its more famous namesake Jammu Praja Parishad. It does seem that this party was an effort to revive the old one. So it is not unrelated. Can the commenters please consider this option as well? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I would advice against a merge. The PPJK claimed to represent the legacy of the original JPP, but such claims aren't very authoritative. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, notability is not temporary. The party is defunct, but that is not reason for deletion. Unfortunately, this article was not properly referenced when created, and the sources that were used initially are nowadays no longer on-line. Coverage in media on PPJK; [29] , [30] , [31], [32], [33] , [34] , [35] --Soman (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a State-level recognized political party [36].--FITINDIA (talk) 08:45, 23 January 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 Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Not sufficiently notable per consensus, but still a valid search term. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Mulinix

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable just for being a faithless elector in 2016. Clear example of RECENTISM and fails GNG and POLITICIAN. Quis separabit? 02:55, 23 January 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 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as creator, I know there's no point in advocating for keeping it because it will just be deleted anyway, so if it is not kept as likely I support redirecting to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 so content is not lost. MB298 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mulinex is already listed in that article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close AfD churning, previous AfD closed 17 days ago. Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I stated at the 1st AfD, as nothing at all actually convincing apart from the simple information and the events themselves, which absolutely inherit him no automatic notability whatsoever, regardless of the news involved, as it still applies and we've never had a policy barring renominations and we never will, because that's now how articles work; any article is open to renomination especially when there was still questionability and there certainly still is in this case. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a citizen of Hawaii who stepped forward to participate in the democratic process. However, brief role as an Elector does not suffice to confer notability. Previous mentions are few and very minor, a caption in a news photo caption of him holding a protest sign at a 2015 demonstration is typical. Museum development directors are rarely notable. There really is nothing else.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The latest absurd instalment in the series of non-notable articles with a minor link to the United States presidential election of 2016. This man is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 in case someone were to search on the name. Per above, non-notable. MB 02:39, 30 January 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. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

APH (rapper)

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

Nothing at all for actual independent notability and substance given the current information and sources are simply listing-esque and the sources are particularly only announcements, listings and mentions, none of which help for our non-negotiable policies, with searches then finding nothing else; overall, the article has only been significantly visited by such advertising campaigners, which is worse when it was in fact part of a multi-account campaign, showing signs of Orangemoody, OfficialPankaj and similar campaigners. All of this is enough for deletion since there's clear policy violations. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage by RSes. No elements of WP:MUSICBIO met. Gab4gab (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 26 January 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 Deleted per CSD G11 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joah Santos

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

Terrible BLP article written like an advertising skit. Fails WP:BIO. Possible professor of advertising but with no verifiable source to confirm. Fails WP:GNG. If keep would need drastic copyedit. scope_creep (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly spammy: "...A pioneer in early 2000s of Mission Marketing Strategy..." -- ? The subject seems otherwise unremarkable. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Purely promotional. I could not get through enough of it to gain any clue about whether the subject might have some actual notability, but I doubt it. Regardless, this is an ad, not an encyclopedia article. Blow it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see what he is notable for. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, per the nominator, K.E. and David, it's so bad I daresay G11 applies here, as well. I've tagged it as such. Speedy delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 23 January 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) Bensci54 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Maluta

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

He is not officially signed by WWE as only has a few notable matches. Bensci54 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't follow WWE, but looking at the online reports he seems to have been appearing fairly consistently for several months now. 8 events, 5 televised, loser in all matches... but I've heard losing in pro wrestling usually requires more talent than winning! He might be around for a while if he keeps up that record. His most recent match was against Brian Kendrick, who is kind of a big deal. WWE report says "Although Kendrick was victorious, Maluta proved he is a force to be reckoned with in the Cruiserweight division." Does that mean they are keeping Maluta in the rotation? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He also recently appeared in the Cruiserweight Classic, which is a fairly notable event that occurred (in terms of professional wrestling). I'm not sure about the status of a contract or not, but he has been regularly appearing at house/live events and on television fairly regularly compared to their signed talent. I'd say that's enough. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's participating in the biggest pro wrestling organization in the world. He has also held multiple titles in WXW. Looking at other pro wrestler articles, it seems consensus that someone with his record is considered notable in that field. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "not officially signed" is unsourced and most likely misleading. I have no doubt that Maluta is under contract ("signed") to appear on WWE events. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator Per the above comments, I've decided that the article should be kept. Bensci54 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 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 speedily deleted per WP:G7, as the article's creator and only substantive contributor blanked it. Deor (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FutbolBoricua

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

Nothing at all for actual independent notability and substance in our non-negotiable policies as what's here is simply business listing sourced by their own website, with searches then finding nothing better hence unimprovable. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article creator (and advancer of the sole "keep" vote) hasn't edited in over two weeks. If they return to editing and would like to continue work on this article, I'll happily restore and WP:USERFY it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Brown (business person)

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

Looked at this several times.Some coverage but think she fails WP:BIO. Bit of a puff piece article. scope_creep (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a WP:AUTOBIO. No substantial coverage in reliable sources, just trivial mentions in a variety of sources, several of which are non-independent. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not an autobio. It was created as part of the BBC 100 Women 2016 Wikipedia Editathon. I would request that the page is retained for another six months so that I (as the author and a newcomer to wikipedia) have time to create more pages and also so that further references can be added to the page which is the subject of this discussion. Keep Thanks Spring Chicken (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want the page kept 6 months so you can create other pages - you would still be free to create other pages whether or not this one is deleted. I have no objection to the page being WP:USERFIED (read that link if you don't know what that means) to your namespace so you can try to track down and add more substantial coverage, and to remove the unsourced promotional material, although I've seen no evidence that such coverage exists. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 23 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FBMA Trophy

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

Unremarkable sporting event. Also this event is not a major figure skating event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wiki policy says that the event needs to be "remarkable" or "major"? I believe that it's sufficiently notable because it's included in the International Skating Union's calendar (http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pair-skating-and-ice-dance/calendar-of-events/2017/01/fbma-trophy Note that it's the only figure skating competition from the Arab world that made the list) and this year it has attracted more competitors in the ladies' event (including the Finnish, Austrian, and Slovenian senior champions, http://uaeisf.com/results/2017/CAT008RS.HTM). Hergilei (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If you're looking for an applicable guideline, Hergilei, try WP:SPORTSEVENT. All the sources are primary, there's no evidence this event meets the GNG, and there's no Wiki policy (or guideline) that establishes presumptive notability for events on the ISU calendar, athletic events in the UAE, or ones that attracted more competitors than the year before. Ravenswing 02:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an event in the Arab world so independent sources are probably in Arabic. I can't read that language but perhaps others can. As for the guideline, it's talking about an individual game/series. It doesn't appear to address what to do with articles which summarize multiple years of results. Hergilei (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if you can produce multiple independent, reliable sources giving this event the "significant coverage" the GNG requires, that would save the article. However, deletion policy doesn't permit for speculation that such sources may exist; they must be demonstrated and produced, and it is the responsibility of an editor who wishes to save an article to do so. Ravenswing 15:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added media coverage from five independent sources, including Yle (Finland's national broadcaster), The Straits Times, and The National (Abu Dhabi). Hergilei (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the newly discovered sources showing it meets WP:GNG, in which case WP:SPORTSEVENT is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Errrm ... did you actually look at the sources? The first one cited (the National bit) isn't even an actual article; it's a picture gallery. The second cite (from Yle) is a press release (that much is mentioned in the text) that only mentions the event in passing; it's about two Finnish skaters. The third cite (Straits Times) is about a Singaporan skater, and the sum total of the subject's mention in it is "Ing obtained qualification after scoring 45.73 points at the 2017 FBMA Trophy, which is taking place in Abu Dhabi from Jan 5 to 7." The fourth cite (the second Finnish source) is an expansion of the previous Finnish cite, once again about the two Finnish skaters, and is the sort of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing to the notability of a subject. The fifth cite is the exact same link as the third, bizarrely enough. The GNG requires that the subject receive "significant coverage" from multiple reliable sources, and fleeting mentions in sources that aren't about the subject at all don't qualify. I can't imagine anyone who took the time to review those sources contending that they satisfy the GNG. They don't. Ravenswing 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source was added,

http://www.thenational.ae/sport/other/emmi-peltonen-excels-at-abu-dhabi-ice-rink-ahead-of-european-championship

Hergilei (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's just another namedrop where the (brief) article is about another subject entirely, and this event is mentioned in passing. There's no question that this event exists, Hergilei, but to establish notability, sources must provide "significant coverage" of the subject. Please review WP:GNG. Ravenswing 01:40, 26 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World University Orienteering Championship 2014

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

Non-notable sports championship. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Renata (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both no independent notability or simple substance, hence nothing else for significance. SwisterTwister talk 02:24, 30 January 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seventeen concert tours

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

I see no references for those tours. Although the article shows numerous concerts in August 2016, the official web site ([37]) shows none. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent mentions in WP:RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources, possibly not independent, for the tours. 2015 2016 2017 Gab4gab (talk) 06:22, 23 January 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 Decepticons. The content is all there in the page history to allow for selective merging as desired. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devastator (Transformers)

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

Majority of the cites to WP:RS are either not to these characters or only passing mentions. Most of the article is unsourced in-universe plot and character recap. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & allow others to provide more sources. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of reliable sourcing. Excessive fancruft, and none of this stuff is worth merging anywhere. It is no use to assert others will eventually provide reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DrachenFyre (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe all the people keen to keep this article could make it less terrible? Or is that too much to ask? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Decepticons#Devastator. I agree with the nominator's characterization of this article as mostly unsourced in-universe fancruft. The little bit here that can be usefully merged would fit well in the proposed target. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the aforementioned list. I think there's enough material out there to source a decent article on Devastator, but the current article is awful and it will be easier to start from scratch. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Maybe a not-terrible article is too much to ask... Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 28 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Arya

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG: I can't find any reliable source to support/verify her role in any tv show listed in the article and also failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR Spiderone 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable--Submitmaster (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NACTOR DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:59, 23 January 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Elizabeth

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

Subject is not notable. Owen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}07:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - none of the reliable sources in the article even mention the subject of the article, not even a passing mention - there's just nothing. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 23 January 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defiance, Ohio (band)

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

Non-notable band; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:BAND / WP:GNG. Previous AFD in 2005, while WP:BAND was being developed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nothing independent found to support notability in my searches. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 23 January 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Land

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

Non-notable sports broadcaster. An IP is trying to delete this, but it's not eligible for speedy or blpprod. Taking to AFD instead. Brad v 01:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be preferable if this could go to San Antonio Spurs#Broadcasters to retain some content, but the NBA team articles are checkered about listing team broadcasters and they don't have a section on that. I'd encourage someone to take care of that in seven days and redirect Bill Land there, but I don't think that will happen. Outside of his Spurs broadcasting nothing else really hits WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 of criteria no indication of importance at the time it nominated this article for deletion but we previously redirect to Fox Sports Southwest but attempting to disrupt this but A7 speedy deletion will might cause it but an admins to delete it 209.242.141.27 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy for you to say. What? Jacona (talk) 14:55, 29 January 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) — Yash^talk stalk 08:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Bhavan (Assam)

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since December 2015. The single source in the article does not work with https, and the http version redirects to http://www.assam.gov.in/. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent third party reviews that fail GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81: you're aware this is a building and not a person, right? Am I missing something as to why POLITICIAN would apply? I'm leaning weak keep right now as the official residence of a notable office, but haven't quite made up my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Oh, I thought it was person. Now, you see I removed POLITICIAN part. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the official residence of a governor of an Indian state. Does it suck now? Sure, but I believe that official residences of the governors of states are notable. This [38] also highly suggests that if enough digging is done it could meet GNG both with physical, online, and non-English sources. GNG does not require that the sources be present in the article, simply that they exist, and as an official residence its likely that there are more sources in libraries, etc. discussing its cultural significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such official residences are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes I think it's a reasonable assumption that all such official residences of gov't leaders/heads of state have some kind of protected or cultural status that would meet criterion 1 in WP:GEOFEAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 28 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wetland ORM

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

This article is sourced only to the websites of the software's author. I'm searched, and I am not able to find any independent sources, so I believe the topic does not meet the general notability guideline, and this article should be deleted. The article author removed a PROD tag without adding sources, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just write my response here? Sorry, first time poster long time visitor :)

What would you say would be a good source then? Third party blogs? I'm curious as this is a serious project offering a new ORM to a language that doesn't have one on wikipedia yet. It's not a commercial product either. Sorry if I'm going about this all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWOverdijk (talk • contribs) 10:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be hard to navigate all of the policy at first. In short, you need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, with each of these terms having a fairly specific meaning on wikipedia. See WP:GNG linked above and WP:RS. Unfortunately, such coverage may not exist for many smaller software projects. WP:BLOGS are typically not used to establish notability, but there are occasional exceptions for recognized experts in a given field.Dialectric (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be a subject that will generate independent coverage in the future. For now it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Like the nom my searches found nothing helpful. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 06:37, 23 January 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. It seems that despite issues with the article's content, the company is sufficiently notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Workshop

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

No indication of meeting WP:CORP; even if it did, it's WP:PROMO enough to merit TNT. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant and extensive spam. Wikipedia is not a product brochure, so WP:NOT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious corp spam DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the previous AfD shows a suggestion to look at Google books. Arguments for NOT are proofs by assertion, for the obvious reason that identifying problems could lead to the fixing of problems. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DW are one of the big names of drum hardware. Agree that the current article needs some serious work, but deletion is not the correct solution. The article contains more than enough material to verify notability, just check a few of the big-name endorsements for example. Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of copyediting to remove the promotion of products but there are sufficient independent third party reliable sources to confirm the notability of DW Drums. For example, this Huff Post article mentions DW Drums being stolen, here's one mentioning their use in an Alice Cooper setup and here's another from Rolling Stone magazine mentioning their use and this book on the history of drums. -- HighKing⁺⁺16:46, 27 January 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Benes

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

Benes never played or trained professional, just in the "Regionalliga" XaviYuahanda (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played / managed senior international football nor played / managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 27 January 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.