Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 December	4 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Çelik

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a journalist, which just states that he exists and fails to substantiate any actual evidence of notability per WP:JOURNALIST. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but nothing here fulfills the standards necessary for an article to become warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP without prejudice to creating again with sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Méryl Marchetti

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

No evidence of notability either here or in the corresponding Spanish article or in Google. All I found were things like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Wiki scrapes. Narky Blert (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Deleted twiceon fr-wiki (2007, 2016) as not meeting notability requirements. No evidence found that he meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship controversy in the United States

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

Essay that fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTGUIDE While it is sourced, it offers advice as to how individuals in various groups should apply for aid and comes close to expressing normative views on the issues in some cases, making it a non-encyclopedic essay in some parts and guide in others. Other articles already exist that cover financial aid in US higher education, and information about any controversies can be added there. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note this appears to be an essay as part of a class project. I haven't come across this before so not sure what the best way to proceed is. I still think my concerns above are true and that the article shouldn't exist in the mainspace, but not sure if userfying or moving to draft would be better. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs. This is definitely an essay, and includes a great deal of commentary and WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks more like someone's homework assignment than an encyclopedia article. Bradv 05:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Donnellan

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

Generally individual notability in team sports is associated with playing in a fully professional league. KD falls short of that threshold. The league for which she will be playing hasn't yet begun (WP:CRYSTAL), nor will it be fully professional. Discussion about Women's AFL seems to show that the level of article creation should be at the team, not the player, level. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football#Notability of women's football. Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Donnellan's notability has been established by extensive media coverage and her participation in the top tier exhibition series of her sport. Add a notability tag to the article if you want but it's only a matter of weeks before this league's players reach you standard of notability. Tigerman2612 (talk) 1:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient coverage for GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fremantle Football Club#AFL Women's team: I do think this article is a bit WP:TOOSOON as she hasn't played a match yet in the AFL Women's comp, the discussion as mentioned by the nominator did say that marquee players should meet notability once they play a match in the comp. The common practice for AFL players drafted who haven't debuted yet is to redirect to the current squad on the main page or the list of XX players article; as she's a marquee player she will meet notability once she plays a match, the precedent for these type of players (albeit in the men's comp) is to redirect before debuting. Flickerd (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of only 16 marquee players signed to the new comp (see here). I think that trying to combat the gender bias that exists in the traditional mainstream media and here as well requires some more lenient applications of the rules. And which part of new national league that's only months away from starting is "unverifiable speculation" that WP:CRYSTAL refers to? The common practice of redirecting is done for later and rookie picks, but rarely for top draft picks, which the marquee players represent. Everything in this article is verified by RS, but I accept that independence is questionable for most of the refs that cover her in detail, not just a mention, but the club & AFL websites claim to be independent, but few believe that. Applying the letter of the law for the sake of a few weeks/months delay achieves no benefit to anyone. The-Pope (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we "trying to combat the gender bias that exists in the traditional mainstream media"? That seems like righting great wrongs to me. St Anselm (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or just using the inherent discretion/judgement call that is found in terms like "significant coverage" to do a tiny thing to help address one of the most frequent criticisms of Wikipedia. The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legally speaking AFL Media is indeed independent. Tigerman2612 (talk) 8:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Redirect - Refs in article presently are rubbish (non-independent - all from AFL.com or the club page), yet Gnews search shows plenty of non-trivial, independent hits (several from The West Australian). This is enough to satisfy GNG, and that's pretty much all that matters. Sport-specific guidelines requiring, for example, playing in a "fully professional league" are about the presumption of notability, ie, the presumption that sufficient sources should exist for a player of a certain ilk. KD doesn't need to rely on presumption - she has plenty of decent sources anyway. Any exclusion argument would have to rely on WP:NOT, which I don't think could be reasonably made. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) - EDIT: Following the comment from Aspirex below regarding usual practice at WP:AFL, best course of action would appear to be redirect to the club page for now. Assuming KD does indeed play a debut match, the page can easily be restored via a simple revert when that happens.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs from The West Australia seem to rarely show up high in the google searches, probably because their website is hosted by Yahoo! The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by independent media coverage. Presumption of notability will also soon be covered by participation in "major amateur league" as per WP:ATHLETE though is also WP:TOOSOON as she is yet to actually debut. Tigerman2612 (talk) 3:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep Notable, sufficient sources, and probably specifically historic for women's football. Aoziwe (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now In my view, the extent of coverage for uncapped AFLW marquee players has been on par with that of uncapped high-to-mid round AFL draft selections. The AFL project has always taken an absolutely hard line that such players do not get articles until the day they play their first game, regardless of the extent of coverage, and it is contingent on the project to apply its own norms consistently. I've seen many AFL draftee articles deleted for "TOOSOON" on many occasions to ensure this practice is adhered to. To accept a 'keep' decision for this article while satisfying WP:NOTTEMPORARY presupposes that Donnellan would still be forever notable even if she blew out her knee in pre-season training and retired without ever playing an AFLW game. Aspirex (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article isn't great, Donnellan meets WP:GNG, therefore the article should be kept (and improved). ColonialGrid (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly at the top level of her sport and meets the GNG in the absence of a female-specific guideline at WP:NAFL. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Isa

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

Renominating due to the poor discussion in the last AFD as well as because of the DRV, Anyway non notable actress, Found a few mentions on Google but nothing substantial, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Role for which she is known for appears to be a minor background one Seasider91 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NACTOR wants significant roles in multiple notable [...] productions, a large fan base, or unique, prolific or innovative contributions. I see no evidence for any of those. The references in the article are just routine listings of the TV shows she was in. A google search shows nothing that speaks to her notability, just twitter, our own article, IMDb, facebook, instagram, vimeo, and so on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G12 and recreated as redirect to ecosystem.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosystem function

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

Article does contribute anything different from existing articles. See: Ecosystem and see Energy flow (ecology). Parkywiki (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be plagiarized from the single source Seasider91 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English versions of the Nicene Creed

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

The article, which has many questionable copyright issues involved with English translations, is primarily a ~~lyrics~~ text repository that would be better off on Wikisource were it not for the copyright issues. After removing any copyright problems, any sourced critical commentary about English translations of the Nicene Creed can be incorporated into the Nicene Creed article. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lyrics repository? Seriously? The Nicene creed is one of the more important attestations of faith of any religion, and, of course, was not originally written in English, so how it has been translated over the years is a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. I am simply not seeing the copyright issues--many of these are too old to be covered by copyright, and those that are not are simply derivative works themselves. Even if public religious affirmations of faith are copyrightable as a class, I remain unconvinced that what we currently have in the article is itself problematic. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Thanks for pointing out the misuse of the word "lyrics". I must have been thinking about the Gloria in excelsis Deo copyvio removal I was doing before this nomination. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is wall-to-wall OR and the subject itself isn't notable. Every single source cited is a primary source documenting a particular English-language version to which many Wikipedians shamefully contributed. These versions are then followed by OR commentary about what makes each different. There is not a single secondary source discussing the topic or providing any commentary on the differences. Not only should this be deleted forthwith, I would seriously question every editor that saw this article and failed to nominate it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand: you're saying one particular liturgical translation was done by Wikipedians? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several editors added other versions of the creed from various churches to this article, which contradicts WP:NOT and WP:PRIMARY. Content around sourced commentary never developed; it became a hodgepodge of differing versions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Editors are working to expand the article in good faith, and most of what has been added seems to be referenced. There's nothing "shameful" about it and statements like that create needless WP:DRAMA. And as for links like forthwith, yeah, I think we know what it means. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would seriously question every editor that saw this article and failed to see that it's obviously about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree that this is not a good article, but it is not so bad that it requires TNT. The subject is certainly notable, but it might be better for the comparison to be clause by clause, rather than denomination by denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lousy page, fails, for example, to cover the Reformation era discussions, mostly about whether ot keep it, but also about the wording, which are probably the most aspect of any encyclopedic discussion of translating this creed. If any of the modern translations excited controversy (as most liturgical wording does) that also belongs in the article. Let us pray that it will grow and improve. Greatly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the translations themselves could be transwikied to wikisource(?). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article badly needs work, and might be revised to include non-English versions, but this page at archive.org indicates the topic of the Creed itself is widely discussed, and I have to think the various versions of the Creed used by various proponents and opponents, as well as by churches with different phrasing of the creed, probably has sufficient attention to merit a separate article. No objection to revisiting later if I'm wrong, though. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flagler County, Florida. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnell Elementary School

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

Unsourced stub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would redirect to the school district page, but it is a redlink. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - si redirect it to the locality as the other standard alternative, TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flagler County, Florida per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flagler County, Florida, as per above. Thanks to Kudpung for the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Queen Remake

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

Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tamannaah has only signed on to it a few days ago. The film hasn't even started any form of filming e.g principle photography. Article is way too early. Cowlibob (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated nearer the films release wen there is more coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to User:Ankitmaury1. Obvious case for nn-userfy. This never should have gone through AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User ankitmaury1

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

Useless article. The creator of this article just wrote about himself in this page. →SeniorStar (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion A7. A family counts as a group, and there's no significance asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kunnirickal

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

No evidence of notability, no reliable sources added.→SeniorStar (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 and tagged as such. A group of people without any claim of significance or importance. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to keep at the moment - merges should be discussed on he talkpage (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Severn

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

He had a short and unremarkable acting career and clearly does not meet the notability criterias for Wikipedia biographies OscarL 14:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with articles on at least some of his siblings to a Severn family article. I would reccoemdn merging the article on his sister Venetia Severn for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable for having the role of Mrs Miniver's younger son in the film, and being one of 8 film actor siblings, and having a number of other parts as a child film actorP0mbal (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject to post-AfD discussion by interested editors as to a possible merger as suggested above. Multiple sources about Christopher and his siblings can be found in searches, such as [1][2][3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Miyamoto

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

ANN role analysis:

1) Monami Suzuki [elementary school] (Capeta - main; though the subject was replaced by Mika Kikuchi as her character grew up)

2) Megumi Amatsuka (GJ Club - main)

Only one main role, and for a production that isn't necessarily all that notable. Subject only voiced for Monami for a couple of episodes before the time skip in Capeta. There are also no relevant results found in Google search, nor are there any secondary sources to help assert the subject's notability. Hence I deem the subject as non-notable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GJ Club and Capeta are major roles, but there isn't enough to indicate she is carrying the series. Stub article on JA Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been re-listed twice and there is general consensus amongst participants to keep this article. I don't believe a third re-list would help so I'm closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Evans

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

non notable actress, Finding everyone named "Lucy Evans" but cannot find anything on this BLP, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anyone who's a principal in 48 episodes of the iconic Coronation Street as well as multiple guest-starring roles on other notable series like The Gil Mayo Mysteries and Casualty (TV series), plus on of the stars of Microsoap and Rocket Man most certainly is notable and passes WP:NACTOR. --Oakshade (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned NACTOR because I know she passes it however that's not the problem ... The problem is the lack of sources, I'm not going to argue for another week however I will say this - We don't (or shouldn't) ignore GNG just because they meet NACTOR, There is no notability here source-wise and unless you can find something beyond the trivial mentions then this should be deleted accordingly (or redirected to List_of_Coronation_Street_characters_(2007)#Lauren_Wilson which is my prefferred option. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above we shouldn't ignore GNG or even BASIC just because they meet NACTOR, Ofcourse if you can provide sources I'd be happy to Keep but as it stands simply saying "Passes NACTOR" isn't enough. –Davey2010^Talk 19:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the nominator himself acknowledges, this passes the NACTOR Special Notability Guideline. There is no need for any further GNG investigation here, this is why we have Special Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" - There is no significant coverage here - sure you could presume there is but that's just guess work, There needs to be sources to confirm what she's been in (IMDB confirms it but we cannot use it), I've witnessed it more than once were vandals will films/programmes the BLP hasn't even been in so what I'm saying is without sources to back this article up anyone could just vandalise it and you'd never know, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Our first concern is WP:V, but the general opinion here is that we meet that. On the other hand, there's reasonable agreement that we don't meet WP:N. During the AfD, there was massive cleanup to the article, to the point that what's left isn't much more than a stub. A good evaluation of this is hindered by the difficulty of finding English-language sources. So, I'm going to call this delete, but with no prejudice against somebody writing a new version, with better sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Wahl

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

Completely non notable, this looks to be made up. A search for him turns up with absolutely nothing. An article about this guy turned up at dewiki, at around the same time. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st : Notability Guidelines :

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

2nd : he is to be found allready in the German WIkipedia

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Wahl (with references to his Position) and weblinks

3rd : sources to his appointment and Positions at Landestheater Coburg (State Theatre of Coburg) :

External Sources (Bavarian Bbliography / Bayerische Bibliographie):

Deutsches Bühnen-Jahrbuch, Bd. 77, Druck und Kommissionsverlag F.A. Günther & Sohn, 1968. S. 250. Curt Wahl zum 65. Geburtstag. Neue Presse, 16. Dezember 1968, S. 8. (Coburg Newspaper) Hans Hinterleitner: Br. Carl Wahl i. D. e. O. In: Die Bruderschaft, Nr. 11/1972. (Regarding Freemasonery) Mykenae Theater-Korrespondenz, Band 18,Ausgaben 1-15, Mykenae-Verlag J. Bauer KG, 1967 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altre83 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before inciting a ugly Edit -War, one should look at the Country Based References (here in Germany and German) and maybe also consult Google Books (Digitalisates)...and one will get insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altre83 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bayerische-bibliographie.de/cgi-bin/avanti/byb/detailsuche.pl?db=bybopac&searchmode=normal&max_dspl=200&index_zeilen=15&printapr=DEFAULT&register1=PER&suchwert1=Wahl%2C%20Curt&trunkiert1= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altre83 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have searched in German, and I still don't see enough. I could be wrong, though, I don't speak German very well. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the Links , Publications and also the Newspaper Articles of that particular Time. It fulfills fully the Notability Criteria alone because of the numerous Public appearances on the Theatre Stage and as Director of Plays. Moreover 31 years Head (Administrative Director and Vice Theatre Director, with full managerial Authority and Financial Authority) of a State Theatre in Germany (Governmental Position, Free State of Bavaria) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.2.47 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a whole-scale mess of poor formatting, trivia, and over-linking. It needs a lot of work if it is to be kept. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This looks messy. Not sure if this is a hoax, the subject name does appear in [4], but I don't see anything in the Google Books. If this is not a hoax, I have a feeling this is a biography written by family member, using poor sources, so WP:OR. Unless a German-speaker can find us some sources, I think this is such a mess that it merits WP:TNT. Also, the author of this is advised to read guides on, well, writing. We have some, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDoes not seem a hoax as it survived the deWiki version of AFD (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/28._Oktober_2016#Curt_Wahl_.28LAE.29) Problem is this being pre-internet it will be difficult to assess. If it where 50 years older I would go a blind keep on this, but the position/ancestry did not count as much in the post war time. Google Book search does produce references, but I thinks those are trivial mentions due to his position. Getting a look at his publications might help to assess if he qualifies as an author. Agathoclea (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Doesn't appear to be a hoax. Google turns up just enough to show he existed, not enough to show notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I trust the deWP notability standards for people in its language area. They are generally more restrictive than the enWP, The references in that article are sufficient to show notability DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References, to the extent they are significant, seem to be to relatively WP:ROUTINE coverage of a administrator of a regional theater. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Levy

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

straight forward failing of WP:music and WP:GNG? additionally almost completely devoid of information and has no references other than one french interview in a perhaps non-notable publication linked indirectly in the article. Rayman60 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great deal of coverage even in French (from what I can find) but I see from IMDb and the Fr. wiki article he did win a fr:Étoiles d'or du cinéma français award, which could be considered a major national award. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A César Award nominated and Étoiles d'or du cinéma français winner who was the composer on films like 8 Women, Whatever Lola Wants, Contre-enquête and The Fall. Per WP:CREATIVE, it does seem his work "has won significant critical attention." --Oakshade (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkface

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

Apparently a well-known British neologism, but I don't think it can get much farther than WP:DICDEF. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Weak?)~~ Delete. The article is, on it's face, a dictionary definition, as it offers three definitions of a single word. I don't believe that "working at the chalkface" to mean "working in education" rises to any level of notability, so keeping that would constitute an unnecessary fork from, e.g. Teacher. My only question – and thus the tentative weakness of my !vote – is whether the literal "cliff or quarry exposing chalk" idea is notable and not already covered elsewhere. Cnilep (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MB, the literal sense is treated at Cliff. I'm therefore striking 'weak' from my earlier !vote. Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided The geologic use should Redirect to Cliff, as does Rockface. Cliff already says that the rock exposure can be made of many kinds of rock, including chalk. And it has a photo of the chalk cliffs of Dover. As far as the British usage for school, I had never heard that before and from a world view, it would be useful to have a good explanation. Not sure if there is enough sourceable info to support it though. Googling does reveal it is a very common term. MB 04:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In theory, the current article would be redirect to Chalkface (TV series) which would include the definition in the current article. That is currently a redlink, however, for good reason: Searching fails to find much more than simple listings that the one-season series existed. I would have thought that there would be significant coverage for a BBC series, but apparently not, and therefore not notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus seems to be to keep the article as is, another re-list wouldn't benefit the article in my opinion. Closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of inns in Bucharest

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

Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:LISTN. Nothing notable about this stand alone list other than a potential travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator appears to miss the point, which is that these inns are all quite historic, some dating to the 17th century. Now, whether Category:Inns in Bucharest is sufficient to the purpose of recording these entities is an open question (although I would weigh in on the side of the list, at least until the red links are filled), but it is not primarily for travel-guide purposes, especially as some of these have long since disappeared. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN, for example see Potra's The Bucharest Inns (1943). Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Looks to be a viable list. No objection to removing the redlinks until they have articles, but inclusion criteria can be developed on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thought Wiki loved monuments? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Is there any objection to redirecting to List of buildings in Bucharest?. Ajf773 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not on my part, but I'd guess that's really a question for the talkpage, not for the AfD discussion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Innovation (signal processing). I see no benefit from re-listing the article as the consensus is clear for a redirect (including from the nominator). (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innovations vector

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

It does not add anything to Innovation (signal processing). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't it become a redirect, rather than being deleted outright? This is not my field, but from a cursory search, the term "innovations vector" seems frequently used as-is. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Innovation (signal processing). This is just the name for the multivariate version of a scalar innovation measure and a WP:BEFORE search reveals that this term is used in papers and monographs in the time series and signal processing literature. Hence it is a plausible search term and a reasonable candidate for a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impression (Dragonriders of Pern)

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

Fancruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An in-universe description of some kind of ritual. Thats clearly fan-wikia stuff. To do my due diligence I tried to find some RS which talk about this but unsurprisingly I found nothing, just some mentions on fanpages and similar outlets. It is just some minor stuff from the books and WP:FANCRUFT fits it pretty good. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft, as mentioned above. The editor can probably find pages on the Pern wikia that could use their expertise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devid Debbarma

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

Contested prod. The concern was: Not satisfying the applicable notability WP:POLITICIAN as it's only a local students group, not a national, statewide or otherwise major position, and nothing satisfies independent notability and substance; the sources themselves are either only mentions or quotes, that's not the substance needed for an actually convincing article. Another is that there's no inherited notability from anything or anyone else and this is policy itself, thus not negotiable. Although the article for Twipra Students Federation exists, he's only the "chief organizing secretary" and, again this is for a local group, not a major one, thus this position is not inherited any automatic notability. John of Reading (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution note: This PROD text was the work of SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) -- John of Reading (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding much about him beyond the two Times of India articles, and definitely not a substantive piece.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still confirm my PROD as the listed article is still not satisfactory for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable political operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Freymuth

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

He took part in some musical events. The search shows some sources about those fests, where he is mentioned along with other musicians. The three sources given in the article are mostly primary sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He appears, like tens of thousands of musicians and music educators, to be a competent person with interesting and varied skills. I can't find anything to suggest that he is notable by our standards. Note: I've removed all the original body content of the page as a blatant copyright violation, and also removed the self-published sources. I've added a snippet about the score of a mass by Obrecht. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's consensus that we should not have this as a dab page, and that we should have some way of guiding readers to the WP:Unblock page. There's not yet clear consensus on how to do that, though. Sandstein 11:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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

Contested PROD. This is a dab page listing no articles that are actually titled "Unblock", and this should thus be deleted Ppp ery 01:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, does not need disambiguating. There are apparently no articles with this title. MB 02:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Block (Internet) as a word form. If there are other terms that "unblock" can refer to at the Block DAB page, it should go there instead. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain some route to WP:Appealing a block, the target of WP:UNBLOCK, as the page history shows that this is needed. Patar knight's suggestion would work well, as redirect hatnote could be added there, "Unblock redirects here, for... see...". – Fayenatic London 09:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Patar knight's redirect suggestion too, but I can't withdraw as there has been a delete !vote by MB Ppp ery 14:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with a Redirect to Block (Internet). All sorts of things are blocked and unblocked and I don't think Internet blocking is a more likely target of what a user might be looking for than others. If you search WP for use of unblock, you find unblocking of:

3G mobile phones
bridge (card game) move
telephone caller identification
storage containers
mined harbors
ethernet Automatic Protection Switching
drain pipes
subscription channels
human arteries

It's really just a word with a common definition. I don't think there is any reason for a broad concept article and WP is not a dictionary. That said, WP:UNBLOCK may be the most likely subject a user is looking for. What about a Redirect there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the redirect to Wikipedia:Appealing a block as a cross-namespace redirect for a common term. How about Soft redirect to wikitionary and add a hatnote. Ppp ery 21:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That idea sounds good to me conceptually, but I'm not sure what the result would be. You mean body-less page that is essentially just a hatnote (and no longer be considered a disambiguation page)?

On Wikipedia, Unblock refers to Wikipedia:Appealing a block. For other uses, see Wiktionary:Block or Unblock.

I've never seen anything like that but I think it solves the problem. MB 23:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Here's what the I'm supposing the page would look like:

Wikipedia does not have an article on "Log/2016 December 3", but its sister project Wiktionary does:

Read the Wiktionary entry "unblock"

You can also:

Search for Log/2016 December 3 in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Start the Log/2016 December 3 article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it; but please remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

(except that the search and edit links would have the right targets) Ppp ery 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I agree with the nominator that this is not a dab page. If Fayenatic london is right, then I think this is a case where a cross-namespace redirect would be appropriate. I only regret that it will allow link-happy editors to have a blue link on a WP:DICDEF. — Gorthian (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gorthian: Why a soft rather than a hard redirect? (I still oppose the XNR either way) Pppery 02:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pppery: I was thinking that it would give the searcher a chance to decide if they were on the right path or not. — Gorthian (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever the user is looking for, they will find it in the search results. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Petrosyan

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

The football player never played in a fully professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Armenian premier league does not appear to be fully professional Seasider91 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:56, 4 December 2016 (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) 09:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinitaa Hemant Apte

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

Non-notable actress lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Is an actress who has not acted in anything. Jupitus Smart 17:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per several source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time, and finding no evidence of WP:NACTOR being met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairavi Goswami

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

The whole article is written like a advert.She has done minor role in some low budget movies, Fails WP:ENT. Razer^{Text me} 19:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Person passes notability and has sufficient coverage in media. most claims in the article are referenced and sourced -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:NACTOR Seasider91 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times of India calling her "the Paris Hilton of India" indicates a level of notoriety suggestive of notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help and Support Center

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

This one-line permanent stub suffers from lack of notability and lack of contents. It is run-of-the-mill, not something that stands out and becomes notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be some room for improvements [5], [6]. Usually we don't delete articles just because they are short. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL. And we do delete articles because they are not notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL is irrelevant. It says that Wikipedia articles are not in themselves instruction manuals, not that they can't be about instruction manuals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And incorrect too. Manuals only contain manual-like instructions. You can cite a manual only when you want to write a manual. Otherwise, the only thing you get out of a manual for Wikipedia is passing mentions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a restriction on citing a manual it still doesn't mean that we can't have an article about a manual based on non-manual sources, such as the ones found by Vejvančický's searches. That's really not a difficult concept to grasp, so please try do do so rather than continue to argue about an utterly irrelevant policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. Hypothetical nonsense nobody cares about. The truth is, the article has stayed a worthless one liner because it cannot possibly become anything else. Vejvančický didn't find source; he has found a lot of search engine hits and is doing a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. Lots of trivial mentions don't make the article notable. If there was really something usable in those source, you two wouldn't have wasted time improving it. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I say "Blah, blah, blah, blah" does that trump your "Blah, blah, blah"? Let's discuss this like adults rather than get into playground name calling. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For once I actually agree with CL on this, I mean what more can you say about a Help and Support center? If 86.17.222.157 has some ideas, let's see a list of them. Why don't you take the time, 86.17.222.157, to make this page longer? WikIan -(talk) 22:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The searches linked above by Vejvančický find loads of coverage in independent reliable sources, showing clear notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my list about the sources below. WikIan -(talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Recently added sources continue to provide no evidence of notability on this subject. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The external links in the article show significant coverage in sources from John Wiley & Sons, Peachpit Press, and Cengage Learning. How do they provide no evidence of notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how WP:NOTGUIDE applies here for it is not written like a guidebook or manual. Per WP:BEFORE the nominator did not check for reliable sources, even a quick Google book search reveals many. Simply because of lack of sources currently in the article is not a reason to judge notability of a subject. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: I did check. All I find is passing mentions. This, this, this and this are not evidence of notability.

My nomination does not even have a reference to WP:NOTGUIDE but it does apply because 86.17.222.157 proposed improving the article with guide-like contents. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort. And none of the random web sources that you linked was found by the book searches that Champion and Vejvančický linked, so it still seems that you did not check those sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"And none of the random web sources that you linked was found by the book searches that Champion and Vejvančický linked". Wrong. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This obtuseness is getting extremely tiresome. Just look at the sources that you linked above and tell us which of them is a book that can be found via this or this search? Multiple editors are showing you where sources can be found but you persist in refusing to look there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the Vejvančický's first link and picked the first four search results. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And my comment, which you falsely claimed to be wrong, was clearly about Vejvančický's and Champion's book searches. It's very difficult to conduct a civil discussion when you don't take any notice of what anyone else says and wrongly accuse people of lying. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be notable, but it would best be put here. This article was created in 2009 and has not been updated very much since then. If placed with a larger article, it may be updated more frequently. Additionally, I believe this feature was removed in Windows 10? It was augmented with the Help+Tips app in 8.1, and I can't find it anymore in 10. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. WikIan -(talk) 15:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very bad idea. If this was simply incorporated into the list article (where, of course, it should be listed) any expansion would be rightly resisted as undue emphasis. I haven't used any version of Windows later than Windows 7, but whether this feature exists in later versions would only be relevent if this article was intended as a guide for users of current versions of Windows, which it is not. Notability does not expire, and we keep articles about notable topics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, notability doesn't expire, but I'm positive it doesn't have notability in the first place. At least to justify it's own article.

The cited web sources only talk about a single bug! Is that what you want an article to state? A single bug? That doesn't justify an article, that is for a news article. There simply isn't enough to explain what it does or what to do with it.
The book sources include exactly one page on how to access it and how to use it (which we cannot put in the article do to WP:NOTMANUAL
One of the sources points out the anatomy of the help center, which isn't good article content
The Other source has a HALF a page on how to start the center, which isn't article content either. WikIan -(talk) 23:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that you've looked at the 96 book sources linked by Vejvančický and the 6,650 linked by Champion? Or has Codename Lisa's role as the editor who refuses to engage with what other editors are saying in this discussion been passed on to you? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did look at all "96 book sources", I'm pretty sure they would all say the same things that the first few sources do. How and when to use the Help and Support Center, nothing more. Furthermore, I doubt anyone else has access to all of these books and am willing to even say that no one will buy these books for the sole purpose of adding any feasible amount of information (which I'm sure doesn't exist) to this article. If you could come up with a list of items YOU would add to the article, I would be happy to read it. WikIan -(talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quote "If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete." You have not demonstrated what content is usable. WikIan -(talk) 21:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What content in the article is not usable? We don't delete or merge articles simply for being short. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That's what I am talking about: Ignoring parts of policies, guidelines and essays that aren't in your favor! Yes, we do merge pages because they are short. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in my list above, 86.17.222.157, I DID demonstrate how your provided sources can not be used. YOU have yet to list how there IS notable information that can be used. WikIan -(talk) 19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as not notable, per Wikipedia:Search engine test § Notability and WP:IMPACT. And let's not forget WP:SIZERULE that must be observed even in the event this article is kept. (A "Keep" or "no consensus" verdict in AfD does not make articles exempt to existing policies.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Search engine test § Notability, "On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability." Most of the hits from the book searches linked above are books published by reliable publishers, not the kind if noise that you get from a web search. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I even need to mention it is not enough? I feel you are refusing to get the point. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not refusing to get the point, but simply refuting the arguments that have been given for deletion. Nobody calling for deletion here has given any explanation of how the very many books from reliable publishers with coverage of this topic do not constitute a pass of the general notability guideline. I would also add that WP:SIZERULE is a suggestion, and far from being policy. We don't merge articles simply for having fewer than an arbitrary number of characters. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting it for who? For me. I stick to my "Delete", thank you; you are clearly ignoring parts of policies, guidelines and essay that are not in your favor. That's all you have done so far, apart from attacking people and calling them a liar while at the same time preaching them about being an adult. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor aspect of the OS, possibly redirect to something related. If nobody has bothered to expand this article in all these years, this indicates of how little importance it is to anybody. We are not a technical documentation for operating systems. Sandstein 12:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "if nobody has bothered to expand this article in all these years, this indicates of how little importance it is to anybody" goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. What matters is whether the sources exist to write a policy-compliant article, not whether Wikipedia editors have chosen to grow it past some arbitrary size within some arbitrary deadline. Am I the only person here old enough to remember that this was proclaimed, and not only by Microsoft, as one of the most important features of Windows ME, but then pretty well universally ridiculed when people saw how useless it was? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "further reading" section already demonstrates notability, and other types of sources are likely available, such as the one I just cited in the article. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. WP:INHERIT. Just because a product is popular does not make its manual notable. What is there about the "who what when where why" of this manual that makes it interesting and notable? Are independent sources writing about its unique features? Was it the first online manual? No, I see nothing notable about this manual that is not really about the product it describes. RichardMathews (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:RichardMathews: Given your reasoning, I think the only way you could have made it clearer that you did not read any of the existing discussion on this page at all is if you had stated that outright. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to the limited amount of discussion this got, even after two relists, I'm going to call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Dental Board of Anesthesiology

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG on its own. Anything useful to say about this could probably be said in the American Board of Dental Specialties article (if that article is notable enough for inclusion...). Sjrct (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator that it fails notability criteria at this point in time. Sagecandor (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be a slow-moving legal and policy debate about whether dental specialties outside the control of the American Dental Association are valid. See, for example, this Google new search "American+Dental+Board+of+Anesthesiology"&tbm=nws. Would merging this and the American Board of Dental Specialties articles into a new article on "Dental Specialties Controversy" or similar not be a better option? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus on a redirect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Wiebers

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

Wiebers one claim to near notability is that she was Miss Iowa, that is not enough to establish notability. She has acted in local stage productions in eastern Iowa, but those are just not on a level to establish notability. My search for sources seemed to come up with the level of sources in the article. The way the reference list is made is a total mess, but so are the sources. One Quad Cities source did not even mention Wiebers name at all, let alone mention the routine it was being used to source. About a third of the sources are PR releases about her winning pageants. The rest is either local coverage from the Clinton County paper or coverage that mentions her incidentally or coverage related to her being Miss Iowa, none of the last shows the widespread coverage we would want to show this title is a notable one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything approaching WP:N. She's been fairly successful in the beauty pageant scene, but I believe that's true of thousands of other young women. Joyous! | Talk 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 07:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Iowa, at least. SST flyer 03:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't see a need for a redirect as the name is unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BEST Platform

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

Does not explain notability and is just a list of functions. Fails WP:CCS Domdeparis (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 06:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost-certain advertisement by a COI account. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Subramanya

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

Insignificant Living Person. Seems to be a self advertisement Ankiz.here (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, insignificant. SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Rupa Subramanya

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:51, 25 November 2016 (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/2016 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't as yet have any opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but would point out that the word "insignificant" shouldn't be used, as it was by the nominator and the seconder, to describe any living person. Let's treat people with a bit of dignity, per WP:BLP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Typical problem with journalists: articles by them, not about them. Same seems to be the case here, fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. WP:REFBOMBing didn't help, they just establish that subject has received some passing/trivial mentions and those are in no way sufficient to write an encyclopedia article. Anup [Talk] 00:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bisht

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not notable. Extra attention needed as at the last nomination it was stated that the article was written by a banned sockpuppet (as the last case of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadman Sakibzz was in December 2015, I do not think that an SPI will be of any use here) The Banner talk 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't tell if the films may be notable, since we lack articles (at first I though we had them, but it proved false-positive links to other articles.) However neither film has even released so at best this is too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello. The film has been proposed to release in 2 months . Here is the official facebook page of the movie. https://www.facebook.com/ShabTheFilm/. Also the actor has good fan following on social media like instagram and facebook. So people are searching about him on the internet. So I believe this Wikipedia page will help them getting concise information.Aditya n06 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Facebook is, as user-generated site, not considered to be a reliable source. Please see: WP:RS. The Banner talk 08:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the website of the production house. It has details about the movie and the actor .

http://www.anticlockfilms.com/films/shab Aditya n06 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Not an independent source. Sorry. The Banner talk 20:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:GNG and WP:BIO...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are numerous articles on the newspaper and websites about this. here are some the independent sources .

http://www.filmibeat.com/bollywood/movies/shab-raveena-tandon.html http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/raveena-tandon-will-surprise-everybody-with-shab-says-onir-1261312 http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/brussels-blast-delays-onir-s-next/story-RLGZNkPtxn1aYfhcY3JX6H.html http://www.indiawest.com/entertainment/bollywood/raveena-tandon-i-was-onir-s-first-choice-for-shab/article_61cf2fb4-a357-11e4-b20a-97b0b698cc88.html

The director of the film won many national and international awards for his films. You can check his personal wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onir Aditya n06 (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other actors, the director or somebody else is already notable, makes this debuting actor NOT notable. Notability is not inherited, so he has to gain notability on his own through his own merits. Backed up with sources about Ashish Bisht, not about the movie or the leading actress. The Banner talk 10: 16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment Agreed that notability cannot be inherited. Please have a look into the following links. It is about the lead debut actor where leading news website like times of India and Bollywood website Bollywoodlife write about him and also a wallpaper website having his wallpapers. I feel this makes him notable. The followings are for your kind consideration.

http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news/wendell-rodricks-to-style-for-ashish-bisht-in-onirs-shab/ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/delhi/Onir-Ashish-Bisht-at-Wills-India-Fashion-Week-in-Delhi/articleshow/44826265.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Onir-director-Onir-LGBT-Onir-movie-shab-Delhi-based-model-to-play-lead-in-Onirs-next/articleshow/34741483.cms http://www.boxofficemovies.in/now/bollywood-movies-posters/ashish-bisht-from-onirs-next-film-shab/ http://www.btownleaks.com/ashish-bisht-make-acting-debut-shab/ http://www.songsuno.com/movie/shab-ashish-bisht-arpita-pal-romance-stills-d70c7a1714.html

Aditya n06 (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Wall (Detroit newspapers and Univ. of Michigan football)

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

non notable hypothesis DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - can't find sources supporting this truly exists —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one of the six sources cited in this article mentions the "blue wall", and that source denies that it exists. The idea that the Detroit newspapers provide "uncritical" and "often hypocritical" coverage of Michigan Wolverines football is presented from a non-neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with above users, no evidence in reliable sources that this phenomenon exists. Safiel (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could apply to any pro or college team in any market just as easily (Gannett's Wisconsin branch basically subsists in the fall on everything Packers, for instance). This is an article telling us obvious things about a 'conspiracy' that actually makes complete marketing sense and doesn't need an article explaining that 'covering your local teams helps you get readers'...and the Detroit newspapers are often critical of Wolverine sports when things aren't going well or they screw up badly (see Brady Hoke). Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A ridiculous joke. Cbl62 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I bet an article could be written on this general phenomenon, but I don't think a specific Detroit media–UM football "blue line" has enough/any reliable sources discussing it. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete at best WP:OR.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete no evidence to validate article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this time there are way too many concerns about copyright violations still existing on the page and that it's non-recoverable. With the consensus currently leaning for deletion, I would encourage a userspace draft and a consultation before returning this to the mainspace. Sources in the article can be provided on request, but the article must be rewritten from scratch. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Adams (author)

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

Promotional bio, full of unjustified superlatives. He is not a professor--he has been visiting professor a 3 universities--these are temporary positions--we seems to have no regular appointment anywhere. Author of three non notable books, and this article seems designed to promote them. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A highly promotional article about a non-notable author. Blatant PR talk like "an award-winning campus-wide initiative to accelerate startups in taking their innovations to market" could be cleaned up if he was truly notable, but I see no evidence that he is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nomination is exact with the concerns and there's simply nothing for actual convincing of genuine notability, and I believe there's some attempts at shoehorning this by mentioning the major football player soon. Regardless, still nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tried to address the major concerns that the editors have on this article. Addressing concerns by Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it and SwisterTwister talk, I added references from various reputable, national news sources, i.e. Inc. Magazine, AOL News, and The Huffington Post, that substantiate that he is a notable, recognized expert in his field. I have removed all editorial adjectives as per Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it comments. On the subject of notability as an author as per DGG ( talk ) and Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, one of his three books, New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century (McGraw-Hill, 2011), is in its 10th edition. On the subject of regular appointment as per DGG ( talk ), I added into the article that in addition to being the founder, he has also been the director of Texas Venture Labs since 2010, as well as the founder. Also, he is a senior lecturer the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. As per the request to add "more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia", I have added over 20 more links to the article. Any other suggestions for change or improvement would be greatly appreciated. Gracephoto (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has been added is still not convincing or sufficient as it's still trivial and unconvincing; also, there's no inherited notability from anything or anyone else, regardless of his connections there. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is actally needed to show notability as an Author are reviews of his books in major review sources, such as major newspapers, magazines, or professional journals. But you additionally will needto remove parts like belong only in a job application, eg. "His fundraising experience includes public and private equities, limited partnerships, corporations, and philanthropy." DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful information. I will add references to reviews and edit accordingly and hope for the best. Thanks for taking the time to give me feedback - much appreciated Gracephoto (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Rammohan

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

Insufficient evidence for notability--an apparently promotional biography DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur there's nothing here at all for the relevant notability z kne of which is exact with its selection. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per above...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kopp

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. Article created by Special:Contributions/JambisMan21 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as such clear advertising, there's literally nothing to suggest it's not, and that's sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable PR executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Sharp

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

The bundle of sources are misleading because they are mainly passing mentions and unreliable (Amazon, for the most part). Much of this article is composed of trivial information that does not really say anything for notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a one great one. Part of an interview of martial arts experts that shows him seated next to, and interviewed alongside, the legendary Bruce Lee. Treated as equals in their respective disciplines. colour me impressed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one interview is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Plus an interview is primary coverage Shawn in Montreal. It is pretty neat that Bruce Lee was involved but that does not say anything for Sharp's notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An interview, if published by an independent secondary source, is not primary. Now, the interview subject's views on himself (if that is the subject of the interview) may not be used for WP:V, perhaps, but can be used to establish WP:N. Common sense needs to be applied, as in the case with all our policies. In this case, Sharp appears to have been quoted as an expert in the field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the coverage seems to be independent. The Black Belt magazine article appears to be autobiographical ("My Life and Judo") and the article by Don Warrener isn't independent since his company (Rising Sun Productions) produced at least some of Sharp's videos. He doesn't meet the notability criteria for authors and rank alone is insufficient to show notability. I'm not voting yet in order to allow more time to find coverage and show notability. For what it's worth, two others on that 5 man interview panel don't have WP pages. Papaursa (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, nothing really making the subject stand out regarding noteworthiness. South Nashua (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG is not met and there's no supporting evidence to show any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Greenwood

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

Greenwood was Miss Tennessee USA which is not enough to make her notable on its own. Being the executive director of various state beauty contests also does not make her notable. My search for additional coverage came up with tabloid accusations against her husband that mentioned her in passing, but that is about it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as therr's no automatic inherited notability from Lee and everything else here is simply trivial and and unconvincing, nothing at all close for both notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a page on unremarkable individual with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Around (Film)

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

Non-notable short film lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--SeniorStar (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Based on what? This is a short film that lacks independent, verifable references. Where is the in-depth coverage or coverage period? reddogsix (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Films notable enough for IMDb should be considered. Wikipedia offers an easily readable, easily navigable, easily searchable common ground for viewers to find information about this short film. Tooury101 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)tooury101[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:RS/IMDB concerning the use of IMDB as a reference. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to priovide a web presence for all movies. reddogsix (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDb article read and understood. If I updated the reference to http://www.lostefilms.com/turn-around, would it be acceptable? Tooury101 (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)tooury101[reply]

Comment - This is just a listing of the credits and is not even close to in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough. Delete! Tooury101 (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)tooury101[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. This film has apparently not been released yet, and no indication has been given as to how or where the film will be released. Nor have any sources been cited other than the film's own IMDb page, which is not a proof of notability, although it might be considered a prerequisite to establish a film's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. IMDB page is not enough...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned vehicle

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

I think this might work if it was a little more specific, or merged as part of an article about vehicles, but this is overly broad. South Nashua (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I also think this could work, I suppose because of specific laws concerning abandoned vehicles maybe, but would need to see significant coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMHO the article's written like someones opinion so I more or less believe this is WP:OR, Anyway better off deleted and rewritten. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. A clear consensus for deletion has been established herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of T20I cricket series featuring Sri Lanka

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List of ODI cricket series featuring Sri Lanka was deleted as part of this bindle last month. Ianblair23 (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - as per previous AfDs of very similar articles Spiderone 10:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no attempt to provide a proper context or even suggest notability other than they were events which happened. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, especially NOTSTATS (again!) Jack | ^{talk page} 11:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nominator WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the nominator and all the recent relevant discussions on similar articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator. MFriedman (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Davis

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

Davis' one claim to notability is having been Miss Illinois. This is not enough on its own to establish notability. The article is very heavily reliant on local news coverage from where she is, some of which is still not even about her in any meaningful way. A google search produces nothing showing notability outside of the one event of being Miss Illinois. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants. I know there is a better way to do that, but I have not figured it out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable beauty pageant contestant with no other indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health care reform debate in the United States