Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 2

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 Procedural close – already deleted via CSD WP:G3 by Fabrictramp. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Possible fake biography, completely lacking any reliable sources (couldn't find any with Google). Even if we believe his IMDb entry to be credible, there's no proof he was ever more than a bit player – despite claims being chased by fans as a child star in the 80s. You can find „cinema posters“ of obviously fake movies in the internet, who didn't even make it into the IMDb – of course it's easier to trick IMDb admins by adding cast members than a whole fake movie starring Shannen Doherty. The article and the four pictures were all made by User:Claireburrows. King Rk (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The fake movie indeed had an IMDb entry once, see archived page, but obviously got deleted. --King Rk (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image on the page looks weird, like it was photoshopped somehow. The Pee Wee Herman Show premiere pictures also look odd, but what raises suspicion is that the photos are dated February 3, 2016. They were uploaded on February 7, so this would presumably be when the photos were taken. Now what is wrong with this image is that there was no premiere for the Pee-Wee Herman Show during 2016. There was a premiere back in 2010, but the only Pee-Wee release last year was the film, which premiered at SXSW. I also can't really find any other images from 2016 with that background, which is also suspicious. I might not scrutinize these so carefully except that there's suspicion of this being a hoax. As far as the IMDb film removal, IMDb typically only does that when something's been proven false or probably when the filmmaker requests deletion, which would likely be counterproductive for them if they still plan on making the film. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything out there for this guy. At best he's a guy who only played extreme bit parts and never got any attention. However what's very suspicious here is the complete lack of mention of him anywhere. Normally if someone played that many roles there would be a mention here or there, even if it was in one of those film books that just catalog a movie and all of its credited actors. I can't see where he has any mention in these places and some of these films are notable enough to have articles, so it stands to reason that he'd be mentioned somewhere, especially if he was known enough to go on to the Sharon Osborne show as himself and was invited to movie premieres. There's also a lack of general fan chatter as well and the only place that does seem to cover him is a blog written last year. I'm leaning towards a likely hoax, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 20:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are enough sources presented to demonstrate that this is a concept, not merely a definition. ♠PMC(talk) 00:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:EUPHEMISM. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, cliche or euphemistic terms. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Weir, Robert E.; Hanlan, James P. (2004). Historical Encyclopedia of American Labor. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 478. ISBN 0313328641. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

      The book notes:

      Sweetheart contract is a sarcastic term for bargaining agreements worked out secretly between a few union officers and management without the input or even knowledge of rank-and-file unionists. Historically, such arrangements have been associated with corrupt practices by either party and usually involve a kickback to a labor official. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations condemned this method as a violation of trade union ethics. Although the practice was never widespread, except in a handful of local and national unions with ties to organized crime, most corrupt vestiges had been eliminated by the start of the twenty-first century. The term itself, however, lingers on in the lexicon of the rank and file as a simile for an unpopular contract, even if it was negotiated legally. Some union leaders simply find it easier to work out an agreement in private and then sell the contract to a skeptical membership, or purposefully avoid grassroots involvement fearing that the rank and file will not understand the larger issues...

    2. Main, Carla T. (2007). Bulldozed: "Kelo," Eminent Domain and the American Lust for Land. New York: Encounter Books. p. 62. ISBN 1594032890. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

      The book notes:

      For twenty-six years, Poletown stood as a textbook example of a sweetheart deal between a private business and a municipality. The term "sweetheart contract" was coined in the 1940s to describe a deal between labor and management that is favorable to the employer and is entered into without the approval of the workers. Today people talk about sweetheart contracts or agreements in other contexts, often to describe deals that benefit outfits doing business with municipalties.

    3. Palmatier, Robert Allen (2000). Food: A Dictionary of Literal and Nonliteral Terms. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 352. ISBN 0313314365. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

      The book notes:

      Sweetheart contract a sweetheart contract. A privately arranged "contract" between an employer and a union official. MWCD: 1942. Source: SWEET. MWCD: O.E. A sweetheart (MWCD: 14th cent.) is someone who is both loved and loving, such as a spouse, a lover, or a child. The word is used as both a term of endearment and a term of address ("Sweetheart, would you bring me a glass of water?") and is equivalent to "Darling." The implication is that the heart is a sea of love, and that a person so addressed has an abundance of it. A sweetheart contract, however, involves a pair of rather odd "lovers": the boss of the company and the boss of the workers, who are carrying on a secret "affair" for their mutual benefit. The unwritten "contract" allows management to get away with actions that are forbidden by law or by the written contract without the shareholders or the rest of the employees knowing anything about it. Sweetheart contracts are also made at the government level, between public officials and executives of private companies, often involving favoritism by the former and kickbacks for the latter. A sweetheart deal (EWPO: ca. 1900) between two friends is expected to profit both of them, provided that the law and their relatives don't get wind of it. If it works, however, it is regarded as a sweetheart of a deal. DAP; DAS; DEOD; MS. See also Sweet Deal.

    4. Richards, Lawrence (2008). Union-Free America: Workers and Antiunion Culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 60. ISBN 0252032713. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

      The book notes:

      The consequences of union racketeering for workers were not only a lack of democracy within the union and the threat of violence associated with mobster rule, but lost pay because of "sweetheart contracts." According to Lester Velie, "the most heartless racket in labor is the sale to crooked employers of 'sweetheart contracts' that depress the wages of the captive union members." Likewise, Life magazine listed as one of the many crimes that the McClellan Committee brought to light the "betrayal of the union members through substandard contracts with employers." To protect workers, the editors of Life urged Congress to pass a law that would prohibit "sweetheart contracts."

    5. Holley, William H.; Ross, William H.; Wolters, Roger S. (2017). The Labor Relations Process (11 ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning. p. 70. ISBN 1305576209. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

      The book notes:

      There was also a public perception fostered by employers and media accounts that much of organized labor was corrupt and subject to control by socialists and communists even though many AFL leaders were consistently anti-communist. Racketeering had become a feature of some local union-employer relationships. For example, in one incident a union official signed a two-paragraph agreement with three major employers guaranteeing no wage increase for three years and requiring all employees to join the union or be discharged. None of the employees had ever contacted the union about joining, nor did they ever see a union official during the life of the contract. This type of sweetheart contract was often coupled with financial kickbacks from the employer to the union official, meaning the employer paid the union official a portion of the labor cost savings achieved by the employer.

    6. Sweetheart deals discussed in non-union contexts:
      1. Mathis, Klaus, ed. (2014). Law and Economics in Europe: Foundations and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 246. ISBN 940077110X. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        Sweetheart Settlements

        Opponents of the class action lawsuit warn about a "sell-out" of the class by the class representative (lead plaintiff). The defendant and a the group lawyer, it is feared, have a joint incentive to reach a settlement that promises the group lawyer a generous fee and at the same time allocates the class members less than they are entitled to, based on the value of their claims. Sweetheart settlements result from a conflict of interest between the group lawyer and the group he represents. The danger of such a sweetheart agreement is aggravated by the fact that the courts are often ill-equipped to uncover them. The judge has limited information and therefore finds it difficult to estimate the value of the claims and to verify whether the amount of compensation is adequate.

      2. Thornhill, William T. (1981). Complete Handbook of Operational and Management Auditing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 481. ISBN 0131611410. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        ... As a result, "sweetheart" deals do occur and the auditors should be constantly thinking of that potential. There are really two levels of sweetheart deal. A simple sweetheart arrangement involves only two banks. A complex sweetheart arrangement exists when three or more banks are involved. What is a sweetheart deal? It is when one dealer makes an accommodation deal with another dealer to reduce or to cover a loss the first dealer has incurred in another transaction(s). That creates a situation where the first dealer owes the second dealer a favor, which I.O.U. may be called for payment at any time, creating another sweetheart deal. It may be days, weeks, or months, or potentially never that the second dealer calls upon the first dealer for repayment of the favor. In effect, the dealer making the sweetheart deal takes a deliberate loss for his company to help out a friend at another company.

        2. There is a second type of sweetheart deal, which I prefer to call a "booking" or "accomodation" deal. That is, when two banks have different closing dates and they use each other to match deals at their regular FX revaluation dates. Let us assume that Bank 1 uses the 23rd and Bank 2 uses the 26th as their regular monthly FX revaluation dates. ...

      3. Reilly, John W. (2000). The Language of Real Estate (5 ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Real Estate Education (Kaplan, Inc.). p. 390. ISBN 0793131936. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart contract A slang expression to describe a situation where a developer hires a thinly disguised subsidiary company to manage the developer's project. Most state condominium laws regulate the use of sweetheart contracts and make them subject to cancelation by the homeowner's association.

    7. Dictionary definitions
      1. Webster's II New College Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 1999. p. 1114. ISBN 0395962145. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart deal n. A deal arranged by collusion between union officers and an employer, the terms of which are disadvantageous to union members.

      2. Robinson, Mairi; Davidson, George, eds. (2001). Chembers 21 Century Dictionary. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. p. 1429. ISBN 8186062262. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart agreement, sweetheart contract and sweetheart dealnoun an agreement between an employer and trade union officials, especially those of a local union branch, which is excessively favourable to the employer and usually to the advantage of the union officials but which is detrimental to the interests of the workers concerned.

      3. Green, Jonathon (2005). Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. London: Sterling Publishing. p. 1397. ISBN 0304366366. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart contract n. (also sweetheart deal) [1950s+] (origin. US) a union-employer contract that favours the company over its employees; a union-employer contract that favours all those negotiating, but not the workers the union supposedly represents.

      4. Ciment, James (2005). Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. Armonk, New York: Routledge. ISBN 1317459709. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        Sweetheart contract

        A collective bargaining agreement in which the firm pays the union negotiator to develop a substandard agreement and sell it to the membership. The Landrum-Griffen Act attempted to eliminate this type of bargaining.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow sweetheart deal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dream Focus that this article is really just a definition that might not be able to be expanded any more. The sources posted above look like definitions (although some are encyclopedic definitions). I haven't seen this written about, as the subject of articles in academic journals. - tucoxn\talk 06:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are more sources:
    1. Gall, Gregor, ed. (2003). Union Organizing: Campaigning for Trade Union Recognition. New York: Routledge. p. 91. ISBN 1134497733. Retrieved 2017-02-07.

      The book notes:

      The re-emergence of single union and sweetheart deals

      Single union and "sweetheart" deals are now back in vogue, after a period of absence since the late 1980s (see Gall 1993). Some employers have recognized the question they face is not one of granting or not granting recognition but to which union should recognition be granted and with what type of deal. This results from "irrestible" requests by virtue of the strength of union membership and organization, possible disruption to industrial relations, and likely poor company image resulting from an industrial dispute, or pre-emptive moves to ward against unwelcome unions campaigning for recognition. In this situation, the key questions become which union and deal best suit the empoyer's interests. ...

      ...

      With "sweetheart agreements," employers are attempting to set the terms by which recognition is granted whether this be with an "appropriate" or "inappropriate" union in order to lessen the influence of the union and maintain managerial prerogative. This may take the form of a weakened union presence where the union is unable to deliver membership benefits, the membership is passive, and the union lacks independence and has to continually struggle to assert its legitimacy. Ultimately, this could pave the way for derecognition and non-unionism. The most obvious means by which employers seek this are the explicit "no disruption" clauses or those which impose arbitration and, thus, lengthen the time by which it may be procedurally correct to ballot for industrial action. However, an array of other means is also being imposed by employers. These include pay freezes, representation for non-union workers in consultative forums, "partnership" provisions, and the absence of the normal bi-lateral channels for conducting collective bargaining in. ...

    2. Chung, Kae H.; Yi, Hak-chong; Jung, Kyu Hyun (1997). Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 311014669X. Retrieved 2017-02-07.

      The book notes:

      The exclusiveness of a single local union could create serious problems for the labor movement. A small management-favored union, commonly known as sweetheart union, could exclude a competing union, even one with a large membership, in collective bargaining (Kim, 1994). A case in point was the labor dispute at the Hyundai shipyard in 1987. A small labor union at the shipyard was organized in July 21, 1987 upon the successful completion of its registration. A week later, a large group of workers at the plant, claiming that the union was a sweetheart union, demanded that Hyundai to expel the small union. The employer, under the pressure, agreed to do so, but the union resisted by charging management with interfering in the normal activities of a legally-constituted union. Because the employer was unable to expel the existing union, thousands of workers from eleven Hyundai membership companies engaged in violent demonstrations for several days. These discords eventually led to a long and violent strikes in 1988. To avoid such pitfalls, the law was revised in 1996 to allow multiple unions at a plant or select one on a majority vote.

      The protests were discussed in UPI here and in The New York Times here.

      Are there any examples of sweetheart deals which were notable enough to get their own Wikipedia articles?Dream Focus (talk · contribs), this is currently a subsection of an article at June Struggle#1987 Great Labor Action. Based on the numerous sources about the protests stemming from this "sweetheart union", it would be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.

    3. Elk, Mike (2014-02-17). "Sweetheart Deals Hurt Labor". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2017-02-07.

      The article notes:

      Several unions have agreed to “sweetheart deals” with employers to win neutrality, and in exchange, “pre-agree” to employer sought contract concessions that cap wages before even organizing a single member. A 2008 Wall Street Journal report uncovered how Unite Here and the Service Employees International Union clandestinely negotiated contracts with Sodexo and Aramark without any traditional labor organizing. Under this arrangement, members were unaware that labor contracts were negotiated prior to joining the union. In Chattanooga, antiunion workers successfully persuaded Volkswagen workers, who had previously signed union cards indicating support for the U.A.W., that such a deal undercutting them was already in the works.

    Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary says (in part):
    Criteria Wikipedia Wiktionary
    Article subjects a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
    The sources here demonstrate that sweetheart deal is not merely a "definition" (Wiktionary); it is instead a "concept" (Wikipedia). It is a concept about how unions make "sweetheart deals" with employers. The encyclopedia article would discuss how in South Korea, a sweetheart union was used to hurt employees by giving them a sweetheart deal of subpar benefits and wages and preventing them from joining other unions because of the wikt:single union agreement. And the Wikipedia article could further discuss that in South Korea "To avoid such pitfalls, the law was revised in 1996 to allow multiple unions at a plant or select one on a majority vote" (quoting from the book Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation). Information like this demonstrates that "sweetheart deal" goes beyond a dictionary definition and is a concept.

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary further says:

    One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated.

    This article's name can take "many different equivalent forms" like "sweetheart agreement", "sweetheart contract" and "sweetheart deal".

    Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G5. Article was created by a sockpuppet in violation of a block. ~Anachronist (talk)

Clinical (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. IMDB and Netflix are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It a Netflix original film, so there's a fair chance it's notable. These things often get a bit of attention. There are lots of announcements scattered about, but I've never really counted them as significant coverage. As far as reviews go, I found [1] from Scream magazine. I'm having trouble finding reviews in the usual places, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Gazdiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist. The entire article is based on one unreliable source (facebook) and one affiliated source; and in fact is original research. XXN, 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Lutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I do see a few articles in the Pasadena Star News and a few minor mentions in the Los Angeles Times, but nothing that I think establishes GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InkMonstarr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs and barely any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Su Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Milano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. One secondary source was referenced in the article. No charted songs. Not yet notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Sagovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Film editors very rarely receive significant coverage in reliable independent sources. XXN, 11:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 21:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Durden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. His death was used as a political prop by a certain political candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please also consider whether this could be merged / redirected into another article per WP:ATD and WP:BIO1E
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 21:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, this individual has received some media coverage, but all of it is about this death, and the means thereof: I do not therefore believe that this demonstrates notability, at the scale that it is. Of course, beyond a certain point even that sort of coverage must grant notability (eg Trayvon Martin) but I do not think this rises to anywhere near that level: we are looking at less than a 100 sources. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Khadun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here's a contestant (not winner) at some beauty pageants. De-PRODded with the edit summary "Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable". This is a notability criterion I'm unaware of and would like to see if community consensus exists to that fact. This would seem to me to be in contravention of WP:BLP1E and common sense. Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Comment [Addition: Fails GNG. All coverage is routine and around one event. Based on searches in Lexis, Newsbank, and three Mauritius newspapers. If there's a consensus for keeping such individuals, please post it.] I'm the one that de-PRODed it because it has been asserted elsewhere that there is a 'consensus' that Miss Universe contestants are presumed to have notability(see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Radonjić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winfrida Dominic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Duca). In both discussions, one repeats on two pages, the claim is made to a consensus or repeated practice holding that Miss Universe participants, as winners of national competitions, have some presumption of notability. I agree wholeheartedly with Brianhe that I don't know if that is true. Worth de-proding, but using GNG criteria, the subject of this article appears to fail notability for basic coverage in RSs. (Probably will change to delete, but following the conversation). AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be the last discussion of the issue at the larger Notability boards. There was no consensus to add Pageant winners. The argument for notability is that the large global pageants (Miss World and Miss Universe) are prominent enough that they are likely to generate significant RS coverage for the national-level nominees. Indeed, Sheetal Khadun received regular coverage in major national newspapers of Mauritius (see: here, here, etc.) Here's what I'm convinced by: Does she pass GNG? Taking into account WP:BLP1E or WP:ROUTINE...it seems not to right now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait...she did win multiple national-level competitions, right? Whether those are significant is a good question, whether they confer some presumption of notability is a good question, but it is incorrect to state that her only claim is mere participation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what SwisterTwister means is that the RS coverage is about participation at Miss World and Miss Universe, where she apparently was not awarded. We can't seem to find anything about the Mauritius lead-up to her participation in the notable pageants. Which isn't surprising given the low population and disadvantaged media situation there (also possible-to-probable lack of English language media). - Brianhe (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the argument for presuming notability for Miss World and Miss Universe contestants: Because, of course there was coverage of the lead-up to the international competitions. See: here, here, here, etc. All RSs. (Once again, if we use GNG with a strict interpretation of Routine, she doesn't appear to pass, but any other standard should result in Keep it seems to me). AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Yurov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bad sources: affiliated and inexact(1, 3). Not sure if has individual notability. XXN, 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Sokolenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable nordic skiing athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He competed in World Champs in 2007 and 2009 and was national champion in 2005/2006 season ([2]). Moreover he later switched to ski jumping (in which he still competes), where he competed in World Champs in 2013 and also got medals in national champs (gold and bronze in 2014 - [3] and bronze in 2016 - [4]). So he is definitely enough "notable". 99kerob (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that. I'd like to request a withdrawal of this AFD, in light of the new information. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  05:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Nijinska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of individual notability. Redirect to Bronislava Nijinska. XXN, 20:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ultimately uncontested.  Sandstein  05:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Tyger Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did get a little attention: New Times Broward-Palm Beach: "Red Tyger Church is the latest band from the (San Francisco Bay) region and possibly the most dynamic example yet of how the Berkeley scene is exploding with some of the most creative ideas in the name of rock since the original San Fran (or London) heyday of the 1960s. Yet another collective that functions as much as an idea as a band, the group seems to be floating down the same tributary as recent Jonestown. "Welcome," the grand finale, is a saintly send-up of awesome proportions that rivals the best of euphoric late-'60s bliss with its male/female vocals and up-against-the-wall vitality. Like the Jonestown and Warlocks before them, Red Tyger Church seems to have absorbed the dense grandeur of the Stones circa Beggar's Banquet through Exile on Main Street -- maracas abound, and tracks build to explosive crescendos." From a review of 2 touring bands; "The Red Tyger Church; Free Energy," (Harrington, Joe S. Broward - Palm Beach New Times; Fort Lauderdale, Fla. [Fort Lauderdale, Fla] 12 Feb 2004) [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stefkovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bureaucrat for a local branch of the National Weather Service who has received mostly local coverage upon retiring. The Washington Post article that quotes him covers his office installing broadcast equipment, not him personally. Fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Camukova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Known for a single event; fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Last claim in article is cited with unreliable sources. Lack of permanent individual notability. XXN, 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three-R-One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on a non-notable band. It does not pass WP:GNG. PROD template was removed but no reason given. Delsion23 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are articles on the band's albums and record label and are equally unreferenced and non-notable:

Labor Of Love (Three-R-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He'll Be There For You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Cure (Three-R-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chosen (Three-R-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A New Song (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TRO Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delsion23 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a VERY notable band compared to many of the ones I have seen on Wikipedia. I have seen some pages for bands that have been around for 1 year or less and have never even recorded an album. If their pages haven't been deleted yet then I don't know why on earth this one is. They have released 5 professional albums and have been featured on multiple popular music websites and have been around for over 14 years. If you plan on trying to delete this page I want a MUCH better explanation than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumingfire1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the band is notable then this needs to be proven. The band, albums and record label are considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). I cannot see any references in the articles to indicate notability. With regard to other bands, the relevant policy is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Delsion23 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBAND may also be useful. Delsion23 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Delsion23 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Delsion23 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Delsion23 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A prime example of a walled garden. I could find no reliable references on any of the topics. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This band is highly notable, if you don't believe me then look at the references. If you want to delete the page you need much more evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumingfire1 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Versageek per CSD#G10 (attack page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Earl Blackfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination as declined CSD: I don't have any particular view on this AfD. The main concern noted in the CSD nomination was notability, per the notability guidelines for criminals and guidelines for people significant in association to a single event. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright infringement of http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3305192/plotsummary and a number of other websites. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

63lbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party references, only IMDB and Facebook. No evidence of film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatica McKinney, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of passing WP:GNG. Also appears to be a recreation of previously deleted material... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Garchy: is it possible for you to restore the deleted content for us non-admins to view? Perhaps to the talk page of the article or a draft space? Would be helpful for comparison. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point? IIRC there was nothing salvageable in the previous version, and an admin has already declined a G4 nomination. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete - the "Time Money" bit on Youtube isn't an interview, it's just a paid spot of the creator plugging his product. That leaves several cites to D Magazine, which is probably too local in coverage to pass the intellectual independence requirement of the GNG. That leaves a different and very short news blurb from 2009 and as noted in the last AfD, the Croatian source is mostly quotes of press releases. VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America1000 23:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that likely didn't meet notability in 2011, and still doesn't seem to. Released one EP and one record on two non-notable labels, and then dissolved to form another non-notable band. Basically zero coverage of the bands, the members, the labels, as well as the albums. TimothyJosephWood 17:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the nominator, I find this article about a minor defunct band from ten years ago pretty pointless and more trouble to maintain than it is worth. Unfortunately though, the band clearly meets the GNG - it has reviews in Punk News and Exclaim!, both of which are reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. I'll add the sources to the article this weekend if it is kept. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenanoraoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source found for the "citation needed" template dated from January 2007. Google search gives very few results, and WP:GNG thus fails. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turbomasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America1000 23:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penal Code (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page essentially reproduces the entire penal code, and should be transwikied across to WikiSource as a result. The Historian (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but simpilyfy the structure section (or expanding/removing it) since it is still necessary for the information about the Malaysia penal code (Example like the date enacted etc). NgYShung huh? 09:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America1000 23:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have proposed deletion because this article is about an individual who fails to meet WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is about non-notable events in a non-notable person; and is un-sourced, written with a non-neutral POV. The only sources listed is about a general lawsuit that has no notoriety. Five of the sources about the one case are broken links that cannot be verified. The only remaining source is a student paper. A Google search on the individual turns up personal webpages and social media sites GuyWhoLikesToHaveFun (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Brother Jim

  • weak keep The problem is there are few good indepth sources of coverage. However reliable sources can be found to cover him for years. The article is not good at present, and will take work to make useful, but I think he pases notability. I just found info on a 3rd federal law suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revimedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been repeatedly deleted under WP:G11 and repeatedly recreated by page author. Suggest deletion and salting. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Further discussion about a potential merge can occur on an article talk page if desired. Closing this discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America1000 23:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrassic Exxplosion Phillipic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable self-produced release by the band. Never officially released and did not chart. Fails the criteria under WP:NALBUMS. No reviews. Karst (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Foxygen did make this album available to its fans in 2013, as is noted in the article. It comes up frequently in articles, interviews, and reviews (e.g., [11][12][13] ) and substantive information about this massive early effort is probably essential to a full understanding of the band's music. If we don't keep the separate article, deletion would still be undesirable; instead, some of its content ought to be merged (with a redirect) back into the main article, and maybe eventually into a new discography article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Although editors agree a rename is needed.  Sandstein  05:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear renaissance in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be an article about an event that never came to pass, with over half of its text describing various reasons that it didn't happen. Propose deletion or merging as an example under wiktionary:spurious Spaig (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename Most of the content seems well sourced and neutrally written, but the title is very problematic, as the OP notes. Most of the content could be salvaged either by merging it or renaming it something like History of American Nuclear Power in the 21st Century. Even something like that would require some tweaking, so that the article doesn't violate WP:NOTESSAY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was more or less my dilemma - the content itself is fine, but the article as is seems more like a place to keep it than a topic in and of itself. Maybe fold some of the larger "tentpoles" into "History of Nuclear Power" and ditch the rest? Spaig (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is decent article about the nuclear industry Fotaun (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do agree that a rename may be needed, however, this particular topic is notable and is referred to as a "nuclear renaissance" in many academic circles. A simple google scholar search finds numerous reliable results using this phrase. There is even a book titled with it. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dennis M. Jones. Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis M. Jones Family Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks in depth coverage in reliable sources. The only RS somewhat detailing the foundation is from Biz Journals. The founder, Dennis Jones, is notable but his foundation doesn't seem to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banmata Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is mostly gibberish. Robert McLenon PRODed it as "By its own statement, provides very little information. Very poorly constructed. Does not add to the encyclopedia in its current state" but that was removed without explanation. The sources seem to be poor and tangential to the alleged deity. Sitush (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-spelled the name of @Robert McClenon: - my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Note to the nominator: please tag or nominate the redirect you wish to delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article has recently been created. presently (mis)titled TomLamb. This redirect is blocking a move to the correct title. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I don't want this article deleted, merely the redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cycle (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see why this passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (non-admin closure, deleted by RHaworth). Raymie (t • c) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Bob James and Earl Klugh album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to suggest why this is a notable recording. Generally I redirect stuff like this to the artist, but since this is a collaboration the target is not obvious. TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Mengalum boat mishap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PROD as WP:NOTNEWS removed without any explanation. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It has more than passing notability, and is not a personal memorial. The list of passengers is perhaps excessive, and could be replaced with just those missing and dead, but that is a content issue, not a reason for deletion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps not something that will be remembered 20 years from now, but has a little effect on international relations (specifically tourism). The article appears well-developed by the page creator, although I also support removing the unencyclopedic "Passengers and crew" section. Timmyshin (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is definitely notable.It is definitely not a memorial. The article can be more encyclopedic by removing the "passengers and crew" section and mention only the few notable ones. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 can be a template for this type of article. Cerevisae (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was consolidated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neath Port Talbot College, the other half of this merger quandary (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 17:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coleg Powys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization is no longer in existence, following a merge. This is causing incorrect information to be displayed on Google which is causing us an issue NPTCGroup (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola David, Ayibiowu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely self-promotional article. Not a single reference to corroborate anything in the article. No sign of notability. Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This autobiography has been dumped on us with no attempt to learn or follow the basic norms of writing a Wikipedia article. Apart from that, it's a pity the "references" have gone now, because Refs 7, 8, 9, in this version showed us three of the newspaper clippings, which could be seen as utterly non-neutral and obviously reliant on the artist's own input. We also have this, the only result available online: a newspaper piece from April 2016 whose opening paragraphs are almost identical to the former Ref 8 from November 2008 (and see the comments below it, "find me on Wikipedia"). There is no evidence that notability can be demonstrated as a basis for any article on this topic: Noyster (talk), 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Two reason for Disagreement for Article for Deletion Olusola David, Ayibiowu

Hello Justeditingtoday, I totally disagree with your personal interest to this article as being considered for deletion instead of you to help to improve on this article. The reason for creating this article is to promote the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as to help improve and contribute to the improvements of the volunteer’s editors in Wikipedia by editing the already existing articles on the Wikipedia encyclopedia and its ongoing activities and programs that promote humanity around the world. For example, Olusola David, Aiyibowu have been contributing photo's and videos to WIKI LOVES AFRICA 2016 Celebrating Africa's Music and Dance on Wikipedia ! This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.WIKI LOVES AFRICA 2016 See the Photo's and Videos 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26 So that’s one the reason why this article by Olusola David, Ayibowu should not be deleted for any reason better for the editors who sees anything wrong it can only help improve on the article instead of proposing its deletion in which I totally disagree for any reason.

* Comment: Secondly another example why I totally disagree is about the contribution that took all my time contribution to the Wikipedia article Wisdom by Olusola David, Ayibiowu also made contribution to the Wisdom on wikipedia page on the 2 feb 2017 by which he wrote Interpretation of Wisdom, Functionality, Naturally, but made it as an addition to the already existing Wisdom on wikipedia through its own user:Interpretation of wisdom/sandbox link. however an instruction was given to him by the Editor who declined the Submission on 28 January 2017 by Dodger67 (talk). The editor said that the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Wisdom instead.Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk)

Delete the review at AFC of a different page has no bearing on the one under discussion here, except insofar as it demonstrates the author's lack of fluency in writing English, which is further reinforced by the incoherence demonstrated here. Sorry, but your English is simply not good enough to write articles here. You should consider writing in your own language instead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a serious conflict of interest here. The username of the creator of this article and the article's title are the same. My advice is that the editor should wait till another Wikipedian finds him notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, something I think will not be happening anything soon. Thank you for your donations to Wikiproject Nigeria btw, we appreciate it. Darreg (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

"I think your line of reasoning seems simian" (i.e. 'flaming') will only make things worse by blocking me and also blocked the IP from editing and attacked me for 48 hrs. By recruiting people to your Side" won't help.

For example: You recruited dodger67 mentioned in the earlier comments to point out my mistakes and use it against me with an abusive language mentioned in his comment to insult my personality and attacked me as well as the article. But this is due to poor network connections in which I experienced has I was trying to edit the mistake or errors in the comments, but I was blocked at that moment by Justeditingtoday. Also the contributions I made to wisdom page on Wikipedia by the user: Interpretation of Wisdom/sandbox has been deleted by dodger67 during this discussion through this attitude of recruiting people to your side for "Voting" Olusola David, Ayibiowu Article For Deletion. Remember "The Golden Rule: Treat others how you want to be treated". And also "Talk to people the way you want to be talked to".Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk)

  • Keep

Another reason why Olusola David, Ayibiowu article should be kept and not to be nominated or consider for deletion any longer after this objection, is for historical background of an artist that is now on wikipedia and could serve as an information's from reliable sources, material and instrument for Wikipedia and wikicommons for future use.Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk)

  • Comment

Finally, I reached the conclusion has I appeal to your sense of justice that this Olusola David, Ayibiowu Article should be prevented from being deleted or nominated for deletion at any time from now on Wikipedia because “Nobody knows what tomorrow may bring” or “Nobody knows when the light of life will fade…” Because life can make us bitter" or "better". As far as I am concerned any decision reached by the consensus of this community concerning this article would either impact or influence my profession positively or negatively.The reason why I said so, is like for records purpose and future benefits. Especially not to destroy the generation of visual arts in other to raise the level of their commitment to their goals and inspire visual artist's and others to peak performance. In Assume good faith, I've decided to make a key decision to contribute and help improved more article's on Wikipedia and also contribute more photos and video's to wikicommons as a volunteer Editor.This would be notable in the sight of God and Men by the mercy and grace of God.Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment

I apologize Interpretation of Wisdom/Sandbox is not a self promotional Article as my name his not written anywhere in it but the comment made for voting has been removed Note: It was just a test has I was using it for practice to see how I can improved in some areas because as a new user to know how it works and it's policy. Not Sockpuppet and not for self-promotional Article as being said by justeditingtoday,in Sockpuppet Investigation but for contributing to the already existing Article's on Wikipedia Assume good faithOlusola David, Ayibiowu (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Aiu Servan-Schreiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of independent sources. - MrX 13:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article written by subject of article WP:COI . Fails notability requirements WP:BIO, upon checking news, newspapers, google search, etc. all that comes up is his website. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moran Mano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. The only other sources I could find were passing mentions in a couple of Jerusalem Post articles. JbhTalk 13:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. No policy-based reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neath Port Talbot College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Coleg Powys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization is no longer in existence following a merger and is displaying incorrect information on Google which is causing us an issue NPTCGroup (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I understand where Google is an issue for you as the organization, but we have encyclopedic notability guidelines that probably find these former degree-granting institutions notable. Merging it into NPTC Group might be an option, but that would also require the merger of Coleg Powys (which is also up for AfD for the same reason and whose nomination I have consolidated into this one for your convenience). Someone more familiar with Google's display of Wikipedia articles may be helpful here. Raymie (t • c) 18:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice as Nice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No regular source cited to prove significance for artist or group. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted citations to support WP:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. (Haydon.h. (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydon.h. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what citations you are looking for - included are citations on Lewis Hughes and Nick Audino, two members of the company who have a long series of production credits: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/lewis-hughes-mn0002946347, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/nick-audino-mn0002946350. I don't know what you are looking for. To have a wikipedia article you suddenly need a magazine article written about you? This is ridiculous. They are grammy nominated and have produced multiple top 10 singles. By this logic every single Music Producer should have their article deleted from wikipedia. (Haydon.h. (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The enormous number of refs does not compensate for the lack of notability that they confer (or do not confer) on the article subject. The fact that individuals in the organisation have acheieved much in their lives does not constitute notability for the organisation itself. This reads like a promo piece.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Producer credits or Production credits cannot be given to companies, only to people. Credits to 'Twice As Nice' are given through the people Lewis Hughes, Nick Audino, Te Whiti Warbrick and Khaled Romain.

However, even if you do not accept the above, the company still achieves notable through the following criteria: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles 6. "IS AN ENSEMBLE THAT CONTAINS TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENTLY NOTABLE MUSICIANS"

Criteria 6. is heavily substantiated throughout the entire wikipedia article.

Furthermore, as references throughout the article they also meet the following requirements: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works... 2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award such as a Grammy...

The article clearly contains citations pertaining to the above. (Haydon.h. (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]


Please also note the following notability criteria for composers and lyricists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. I fail to see how this is not easily met by, for example, Twice as Nice's work on the song 'Needed Me'. We find this in the article with reference [7] http://www.complex.com/music/2016/01/a-look-at-the-production-credits-for-rihannas-anti-album That source is from a major independent website, which credits 'Twice As Nice' as "producers", "composers" and "lyricists" on the track 'Needed Me', which was a 4xplatinum track and one of the most notable tracks of 2016. This information is referenced in the very first paragraph of the article, and clearly meets the above 'notability' standards.(Haydon.h. (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

That source states that people from Twice as Nice were co-producers or co-writers, along with other people - at no point does it discuss Twice as Nice in any depth. To quote from WP:INHERITORG - "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member." Exemplo347 (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why that is relevant. Wikipedia criteria does not state any "depth". For you to insist that "depth" is required for notability is incorrect and is not a feature of any notability criteria for composers and lyricists. Notability can be achieved through, and I quote, "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", ie. it merely states that parties must be "credited". That is EXACTLY what that source does. It "credits" the group 'Twice As Nice' for writing a "notable composition", in this case a song which is certified 4x platinum. Regardless of whether or not you find them notable in regards to wether or not "reliable independent sources" have discussed them, they are "notable", as per wikipedia article criteria on composers and lyricists, as they have clearly been credited "for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Multiple sources - all independent - cited in the very first paragraph, credit the group 'Twice As Nice' for their production work on notable compositions. (Haydon.h. (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
You may have missed my post above, where I quoted directly from the General Notability Guideline - "Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" - that's where the requirement for depth comes from. You really should read these links that people keep providing for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find your post extremely patronising. The music group 'Twice As Nice' are a music group, and not only meet the criteria for a musical ensemble, but for composers and lyricists. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_ensemble. I suspect you are imagining the group 'Twice As Nice' as a corporation, when they are in fact, a music group. My question to you is why does it matter if you perceive them to fail 'general notability' guidelines when they easily pass the notability guidelines for musicians under Composition and Lyricism? From where I sit, it seems as though you are failing them for not reaching a notability criteria that they are not trying to reach. The group 'Twice As Nice' achieve notability through being a music group and through that criteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists), not through being a corporation - nowhere has it been stated that they are a corporation. Perhaps instead of writing a patronising response you might respond to the case I've put forth, and demonstrate to me how they fail notability for musicians, irregardless of 'general notability' - or at least point me in the direction as to where it says they must meet a notability criteria outside of the category they fall under. It seems to me this is the equivalent of failing John Lennon, a notable musician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon) on the grounds of him not meeting the notability criteria of a sportsperson. (Haydon.h. (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The General Notability Guideline, if you read it, clearly states that it applies to every article. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider what you mean by 'depth', as per guidelines presented on the notability guidelines - "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". I would implore you to use common sense. This is a group that has been nominated for multiple grammy awards and have produced multiple top 10 singles. It is industry standard to credit individuals, as companies cannot be credited for production, composition, or lyric writing. It seems that you are arguing that they don't achieve notability through 'depth', but depth is an arbitrary term - I don't understand how depth is not achieved through production, composition and lyricism credits on hundreds of songs. This is a grammy nominated group we are talking about, who are RIAA, ARIA, FIMI, BPI certified musicians - in short, they are notable by any measure. Please use WP:Common Sense here. They achieve notability through their credits for writing hundreds of songs, as referenced in the article. (Haydon.h. (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The Group weren't nominated. The individual people were nominated. That's what you're not getting, and it's a vital thing for you to understand - for Wikipedia's purposes, Notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is because, as I explained, in this industry performer names or companies are not credited for these kinds of credits. The songwriter is never credited by their artist name, and only credited by the name of their person. Even so, I would point to the following citations which support the group Twice As Nice as notable which arbitrarily do not provide enough 'depth' for you, even though wikipedia clearly states that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage".
-http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/watch-lil-wayne-skate-it-off-in-new-video-20160616
-http://www.complex.com/music/2016/01/a-look-at-the-production-credits-for-rihannas-anti-album
-https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/summer-in-the-winter/id1067482417
-https://www.axs.com/listen-ariana-grande-gets-her-life-in-uplifting-dance-cut-be-alright-79211.
These are sources referencing the group by name from major independent websites. Can I ask what your issue is with these sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydon.h. (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC) My apologies forgot to sign this. (Haydon.h. (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note I'm not going to go round and round in circles with an editor who clearly has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. I've made my policy-based arguments and they haven't been countered by the cherry-picked quotes from guidelines or by the belligerent wikilawyering. As I've already said - "The references in this article do not provide the Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that Wikipedia's GNG demands. You can't inherit notability - a person does not become famous because they work with a famous person, for example." Exemplo347 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The critical information I am reading on WP:ORG is that "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC." You have told me that all articles need to meet the general notability standards as well as the subject-specific notability standards - yet that is blatantly untrue. Reading the WP:Notability you can see in the very first paragraph it clearly says the opposite of this - it states that articles meet "either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" - key words being 'either' and 'or'. As I have demonstrated it meets the subject-specific guidelines for WP:Music. (Haydon.h. (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ylva Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept is a lovely and strong idea, and I wish all the best to this publisher and its authors. Nevertheless, it appears to fail the WP:GNG, WP:CORDEPTH tests for inclusion as an article in the English language Wikipedia. I also note that there is no corresponding article on the German language Wikipedia. Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E 11:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Andreoff Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NOTABILITY. He seems to have had some success, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The society fellowship may be enough for WP:PROF#C3., although it is not a society I have heard of. And his common name makes it very difficult to search for his publications, but I found five with over 100 citations in Google scholar, likely good enough for #C1. They are:
  • 203 for "Conversation as planned behavior"
  • 184 for "Noun-phrase analysis in unrestricted text for information retrieval"
  • 171 for "Toward a medical-concept representation language"
  • 117 for "A statistical approach to automatic OCR error correction in context"
  • 105 for "Coupling niche browsers and affect analysis for an opinion mining application"
David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per consensus above, Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vincent Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person does not pass BASIC GNG. FITINDIA (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas toad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable orphan stub without any other sources than a photograph (now a dead link, but an archived copy is available). The scientific name is not included in the Amphibian Species of the World, the most comprehensive online database of scientific names for amphibians, nor in the AmphibiaWeb, another major amphibian site. My understanding is that "Christmas toad" is a name that is sometimes used in the pet trade, but I am unable to link it to any recognized species. Micromesistius (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It turns out that the species is actually Rhinella spinulosa (or Bufo spinulosus). The individual in the photograph is apparently a juvenile (you can see more photographs at this source). Not being able to find B. espinuloso in any database may be explained by the original specific epithet in the original source I may have found it somehow having become Hispanized. "Christmas toad" might indeed be some pet store name given to these juvenile individuals that somehow found itself on whatever obscure source I've gotten the information about this animal from, along with the species name "Bufo espinuloso." Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if there is a reliable source linking "Christmas toad" with Rhinella spinulosa/Bufo spinulosus, then this page should be made into a redirect instead of deleted. Micromesistius (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Christmas toad" is a name that was used in the pet trade, but it's clear what the identity of the animal is. There are speculated IDs on some pet forums (e.g. [14] [15]), but nothing that looks firm enough to definitely link Christmas toad with a species. Suggestions include Bufo variegatus, Bufo chilensis, Bufo rubropunctatus. It's entirely possible that multiple species have been marketed as Christmas toads. Keeping this as a dab page might be a possibility, but I really don't want to set up a dab page based on speculation in non-reliable sources. Plantdrew (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is obviously some confusion regarding this species. A Google Scholar search doesn't find anything for this species. Rhinella spinulosa does, however, come up immediately. The colloquial name most certainly doesn't show up in results. A search with both names gives no results. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a pet trade name, but in the absence of a reliable source linking this name to a clearly identified species, this should not be made into a redirect.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E 11:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen E. Christensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG. She is presented as an academic but clearly fails WP:PROF she is also presented as an author but there is no proof that she meets WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Domdeparis (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 00:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 Days That Shocked the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and unremarkable television program. No RS found to establish notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I did PROD, it was deproded for reasons I still don't fully comprehend -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I looked at the Prod remove comment, then ran a news archive search. There were 3 hits, mentions of this series in Aussie newspapers. Only 3. And all are mere announcements, like this one which I quote in full,: "This new series will each week air a program about pivotal days that changed the world, based on viewers' votes. Tonight's program goes back to London on the night of The Blitz - December 29, 1940. Events are told through the eyes of those who lived through it." That's it. No feature coverage. No reviews. 3 listings, all form 2007. It looks like a thoroughly un-notable TV series. Still iVoting delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generic countdown show with likely generic videos of historical events; nothing really notable, even the 'viewer choice' gimmick, which is more appropriate for a music video show than it should be for a historical event series. And no, the PRODding reason "as a TV programme it's a source in itself" isn't sourcing enough (from a sysop, really?); it needs some kind of independent vetting, or we'd have every YouTuber and musician claiming that 'my music/Minecraft Let's Play is a source in itself'.Nate (chatter) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable as far as I can see. Looks like one of an article for everything as per List of programs broadcast by History (TV channel)... Perhaps merge as a footnote to the list entry in that list and redirect? Aoziwe (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your target relates to the American channel, so a merge would not be appropriate. It is not a likely search term in any event -- Whats new?(talk) 22:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that it is the NA channel only? given that this is already listed there? Aoziwe (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead of that article "This is an incomplete list of television programs formerly or currently broadcast by History/H2 in the United States." -- Whats new?(talk) 11:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the content does not appear to match, so does the lead change or does the content change? I do not know the content so cannot fix. There may well be more than one anomaly? Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The show may have been broadcast on the American channel. In any event, not relevant to this AfD -- Whats new?(talk) 22:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E 11:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too much of an advert, needs TNT. G11 contested. Atlantic306 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 00:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siebert Neethling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article makes a number of claims, but a search for coverage in reliable sources only resulted in brief mentions, promotional material, or professional sites. The only sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube and the Hood Prank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, its an essay. Secondly. "Youtube, Race and the Hood Prank" is not a subject supported by any references including this one and the others that are cited. Article Fails WP:BASIC. Note, also at Draft:Youtube and the Hood Prank Flat Out (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G12 deletion. Additions to the article made in good faith after its creation could not fix the initial WP:COPYVIO. No prejudice against recreation. I strongly suggest that the http://www.dragonseyerecordings.com website does not meet the WP:ELYES guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann Novak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search finds no independent third-party evidence of notability, only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dogshitter Wants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought I'd attempt to improve this article but it quickly because evident it misses notability (even WP:GNG) by some considerable distance. 4 facebook likes. minimal vimeo views (not on youtube it appears). no significant coverage. Bulk of content added 10 years ago by SPA IP. all unreferenced. promotional. Rayman60 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a note that this should be for MTV2 (UK and Ireland); the American MTV2 wouldn't have aired these since the title alone would have put them in the FCC doghouse (MTV2 US at the time had broadcast affiliates which couldn't touch any of this content). That said, this is yet another example of little-remembered network continuity filling a slot where a commercial didn't, and especially little publicity since they were carried in the dead of night for insomniacs. Didn't last long and has little WP:N otherwise. Nate (chatter) 06:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Allan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find anything that indicates any notability about the subject's projects, nor can I find any source that mentions the subject, including Global Music.. Fails WP:Music Rogermx (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has n been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bratayley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable--a few really short articles in entertainment magazines do not add up to in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - not notable.Orenburg1 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wiszowaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Village Trustee and failed mayoral candidate for small village, does not meet WP:NPOL. After removing material that was not properly cited with RS, there is not much left to this article and searching, as expected, does not find much else - just a little local coverage. MB 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!! Wiszowaty was the youngest elected official in the State of Illinois in 1989, proposed the Chicago Bears Stadium and remains active in the community and south suburbs. History must be recorded and addressed and not "deleted". You should expand your search. User:Wiszo8

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Nichols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete; WP:BLP of a former mayor of a village of 10K, not notable per WP:NPOL and no other claim that would pass WP:GNG. Article has no refs from RS, and searching only turned up a few minor things in a local paper. MB 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack N. Stock: You're likely right that this guy isn't notable, but that has nothing to do with how many refs are currently in the article. The question of notability is purely about whether the subject is widely enough known in the world, with the kind of evidence provided by nom above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, just expanding the conversation rather than restating. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the time Thomas J. Nichols served as village president, the population was five or six thousand, based on 1961 census. This, along with very limited sources, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, mayors of smaller towns are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, and national or international press coverage does not exist. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the claim of notability as a small-town mayor is weak and the sourcing is weaker. Nor could I find anything in the links provided above that would support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. I can find no coverage of this entity and there are no sources in the article. JbhTalk 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 01:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 01:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E 11:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly unsourced and too broad a subject, how do you define a "protest" JMHamo (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This could be a useful topic if appropriately researched and cited. I have added some detail to make it a little more substantial, but I only grabbed the low-hanging fruit from a Google search. A couple of those previously included were not specifically against Barack Obama, though, so it could be more focused. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but preferably move to Timeline of protests against Barack Obama for that most accurately describes the content of the article, if needed, we could suggest a split. Sources are a separate issue and there is no need for deletion. If a reliable source calls something a "protest", it would make sense to include it in this article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hörmann Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have all due respect for the fact that de.wiki does have an article on this corporation, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to find the kind of independent, reliable sources that would enable me to develop this into a proper encyclopaedia article. —S Marshall T/C 00:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.