Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 17 August 19 August >

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 redirect to Monster. Redirect is good. They're cheap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous

Monstrous (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)

Everything on this DAB page - except for

WP:PTM
. I propose delete.

If this page goes, then Monstrous (disambiguation) will be an orphan and should go too. Narky Blert (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 18 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher C. Adams

Christopher C. Adams (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 voice actor. Has roles in several anime series, but cannot find RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:30, 18 August 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 merge to

WP:SMERGE to make sure we comply with attribution requirements after the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies

Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies (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 very long article appears to be a

POV fork
to present all of the negative information about the subject.

This article does not indicate that the media coverage of the subject is itself

notable or deserves its own article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there is room for elaboration of many of the paragraphs, it goes much too far to delete the whole entry. It abounds with very well researched information and is a very useful resource for people who want to know more about the many controversies surrounding this man.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And something else Robert McClenon: you are complaining that there are no external links to this entry. Correct, hopefully the will come, but what can you expect from an entry that was added two days ago in it's entirety? Best wishes, --Mathilde2009 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then. But someone wrote: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (August 2017)

And my point is valid, I'd say.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give time for TimTempleton's merge suggestion to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Media_on_Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon.27s_controversies My talk page isn't the proper place to make the case to keep an article when there is an AFD. I would ask that the closer take it into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon, this new user (first registered edit 10 Aug) was unaware how to find this AfD entry page. He asked me on my talk page as well and I have now forwarded him a link to this page. Loopy30 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no reason for such extensive coverage", Timtempleton writes. What is the source for those words? I would say that, on the contrary, there is ample reason for this article because Mr Bomjan is at the center of a rather dangerous cult. [Would be] Followers looking him up will mostly find propaganda produced by Bomjan's adepts and little that will help them to move away from Bomjan and regain their independence. So, this Wiki entry is a rare, easy to find and useful resource for these souls. Deleting this article will help the inner circle of the adepts and Mr Bomjan himself, not those trying to research him and find reasons to severe their links with him. --Mathilde2009 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deferring to
WP:CRITS which says to avoid articles or sections just on controversies. It can be kept balanced, but in this case this info can be dramatically condensed and merged. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment @Mathilde2009: All the more reason to move the controversial information to the article itself. If the main article shows both points of view, weighted appropriately, all readers can decide for themselves and they will not be unduly swayed by either the positive-spin main article or a the negative-spin controversy article. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge as per Jeff G. ツ if I have a right to vote about my own article (please advise). I am sorry to come late here, I was not able to find this link (Thank you again, Loopy30!). Reading your suggestions, I can agree with merging. I also took to my heart what Robert McClenon complained about, that it is too long. I think partly because - to enable quick search for references - I made each media entry as a single subtitle. This created an endless List of contents. I still consider these rather formal and cosmetic problems and can be solved easily. Someone above mentioned that same events had been mentioned repeatedly. That was my intention, so that there is proof from at least two independent sources that the event really happened. Please advise me what is the priority between the two approaches (shortness of final text versus reliable information from different sources)? TimTempleton and others suggested merging with the main article. I think it could be done in a way that the first descriptive part could go to the main article, and a "dry" list of the medias could make a new article of the type of "List of...". I have no problem to elaborate a list of "positive links" in the same format to have them all in one "List of" page. But in this particular case, I am afraid, mentioning just one or two links from the long list of sources about his controversies would not be reliable enough to positively prejudiced seekers for information, because this is an area full of mystification and there are claims the media had conspired against Ram Bomjon. I totally agree with the logic of Jeff G. about the importance of seeing the proportions between negative and positive information. I also agree with Jeff G. "the tags that claims are not in the refs are worrisome" in the main article. DarkAges 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also Mathilde2009, thank you to bring to the attention the need for reliable sources for those who really need them. It could even save some people to become his new victims, I am confident, because the drastic SEO of the propaganda pages about this person pushed out the critical articles from searches. Let me just add what I wrote to Robert McClenon, that because the article has in its title that it is about media and the controversies they cover, it is containing much more links supporting a negative image than a positive one. The article is not a biography or a general overview. But still it has many links to the main article and links to the cult's organization, their literature etc. - I counted, after latest editing, more than 26 links which belong to the "positive image" part. Which POV Fork would do that...? I also noted to Robert that not a single sentence is without reference to media sources. I think most opinions about POV Fork, WP:OR or WP:UNDUE are caused by not clicking on the links and not checking the reliability of quotes and claims from the references. I think anyone who have stayed Nepal or reads about it, or experts in Buddhism, recognize easily the notability of the article topic. Thank you everyone!DarkAges 19:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 19:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even if this was not so close to bollocks because of how badly it's written, I would still delete it as . Bearian (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Don't bite newcomers @Bearian:. If the article is badly written, it can be improved, isn't it? Try to rewrite it, but why do you want to throw away a precise work in a good intention to provide a balanced picture? First look at the main article, and if that you find well written, impartial, neutral and well sourced, fair enough. Yet then cult propaganda and irrational statements with no other proofs than their own blogs will be regarded as Wikipedia standard, and serious works based on multiple mainstream media sources as "badly written". Also, the main article's biography stops somewhere in 2010, with a jump to 2012 mentioning one controversy in a single sentence. I disagree with you Bearian, as I am not pushing any opinion, I do not need to push anything, it is pushing itself to your eyes if you read those sources, check out the photos and news links, for example the Image TV channel showing his bloodied victims. One photo to an article in the Prateek Daily shows his own mother at the local police station reporting her son for keeping her and other 4 siblings hostage for five days, beating them and kidnapping the youngest daughter: do I need to push anything about this one? I only collected the sources, and put them on display alongside the "positive image" ones (more than 20 of these), if you care to read and distinguish them from each other. I could have just listed the links and not add descriptive text, yes, but then those unfamiliar with how things were evolving over the years, would not understand how it is that there were (seemingly) no (searchable) news for ten years, or why we find the controversies only in archives now: so I added the descriptive first part to explain the reason for uneven media coverage. ... However, the main article intentionally left out the most drastic controversies and mentioned only three, and only in two lines, and had not been updated by the latest interview where the follower actually admits Bomjon had hands in the death of his sister (Setopati). Can you put on a balance the two things? What is more important about a celebrated religious leader? Information (from mainstream media) about people being kidnapped, beaten to blood and (apparently) even killed, or a holy legend about the length of his hair and whiteness of his robe, and claims of inedia without any proof? As Jeff pointed out above, proportion should be kept. Thanks for thinking twice. This comment is reduced, the full version is on my User Talk page. DarkAges 22:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 22:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs) [reply]

I completely agree with you, Kaliage. And to Bearian: If "pushing a point of view in violation of our charitable charter" is a problem, then why not delete the mostly hagiographic main article about Bomjan? This is not a rhetorical question. In the meantime I agree with Kaliage that there is no need to push the subject matter of this article because it pushes itself when you follow the links given. --Mathilde2009 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to South Nashua It would be more constructive to give reasons, South Nashua. Articles solely focusing on controversies are many on Wikipedia. If there can be published controversies about Mrs. Clinton or Buddhism openly, or about totally unknown figures like Bulssy Jaybyeon (have anyone heard about him?) why not about a Nepalese religious leader with organization branches in the US, Japan and Europe? Any scientific reasons for such selectiveness...?Thanks.DarkAges 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
  • Comment @Kaliage:Sure, happy to elaborate. There are few links in there that meet RS on a few of the controversies in the main article that can't hurt to be added (i.e. - the incident with the Slovakian). Also, a courteous tip, it's common practice on Wikipedia to use four tildes after each comment in non-article space and you also might want to use the ping template if you're talking directly to another person in a discussion. South Nashua (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @South Nashua: As Jeff G. ツ pointed out, and also this Wikipedia page, the proportion of what is more in reliable sources (not on Google or cult-based sources), "admiration" or criticism, should be mirrored in the article. The main article has not kept faithful to that proportion. It deals with romantic mystifications, while the mainstream Nepalese media (which that author forgot to mention at all) had been describing over more than ten years a series of rather criminal deeds. So if you just add a few links from my article to the main one, without changing its whole structure, you will not mirror the true picture. Moreoever, don't know if you really read these things, but actually the link about the Slovakian had already been there, in the main article (in one sentence). So I am confident that there is also a need to show that his controversial actions are not just occassional "mistakes" but a regular pattern on a nearly yearly basis(a few lines down I show you why), and if you count, those victims are more than a dozen. Can you just satisfy a ten years long media coverage of his criminal deeds (totally ignored in the main article!) with adding a few other media links to the main article? The rest of my comment is on my User Talk page, not to fill the space here so much. DarkAges 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 14:51, 24 August 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) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helmes AS

Helmes AS (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. Fails

WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 18 August 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 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Powell-Thomas

Andrew Powell-Thomas (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)

feels like advertising ~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 18 August 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) 01:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Corporate News Network

Japan Corporate News Network (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)

Unable to find in-depth coverage for company. Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Searched for variations including "Japan Corporate News Network" - "Japan Corporate News" - "JCN Newswire" CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that due to lack of

significant coverage in reliable sources, the subject of this article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

John Patrick Acquaviva

AfDs for this article:
John Patrick Acquaviva (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 relevant, John Patrick Acquaviva is a Youtuber whose biography includes several false and primary sources, and the article fails many notability guidelines as specified in the

talk) 21:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John is one of the most important political activists in venezuela currently, as you can see from his hundreds of thousands of followers, verified accounts on facebook and twitter and millions of video plays, but besides that, his sporting success itself is enough to mark him as relevant for a wikipedia page, he was the first football freestyler to ever carry the olympic torch and he established the first ever freestyle football academy in venezuela besides winning several national and international competitions, furthermore, this seems like a censorship attempt as if you go into user "Jamez42" page you can see he is involved in venezuelan politics as he has changed several articles relating to venezuelan political figures such as Henrique Capriles, John had his youtube account suspended due to a targeted attack by youtubers "Danna alquati" who has 300 thousand subscribers and "La divaza" who has over 2 million, and is constantly getting temporary bans due to how controversial he is, this is nothing more than another attack. Do Not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.97.191 (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The personal attack of an IP that started editing minutes after I nominated the article for deletion only confirms my suspicions and highlights the importance of a creation semiprotection. Notability of biographies are not proven by followers or verified accounts, but by accomplishments. If John has previously had several temporary bans in Youtube it makes me wonder if there are any other reasons besides "being controversial". --
talk) 23:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Response to explanation: Carrying the Olympic torch (while a very cool thing) is unfortunately not notable unless there is something that sets them apart from the nearly 200,000 other torchbearers throughout the various Olympic Games (like actually getting to light the cauldron itself). Number of social media followers or YouTube views are similarly not a gauge of notability (see
WP:NFRIENDS). If he is indeed as important an activist as you claim, there should be a substantial independent news coverage of him somewhere; I personally am not finding it. Can you point us toward some? It is possible that I am not seeing Venezuelan news in my searches, so if there are some reliable sources out there, please list them. Cthomas3 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Response to explanation:

Hi, while I understand Jamez's arguments, he needs to understand that John is from Venezuela, a country that has one of the most censored media in the world, most of the articles speaking about John's accomplishments as an athlete from Venezuelan outlets have been either deleted or the websites are no longer active due to the government having closed them (Such as NTN24), and from 2013 onwards John was blacklisted by the Venezuelan government so was obviously cut off from media access in the country, however, there are many many tv interviews of his on youtube, but I take it you dont accept videos? (If you do let me know and I will gladly make a list), besides that, there are countless pictures and videos of him carrying the torch, plus, here is the official UK embassy in Venezuela mentioning him for having carried it https://twitter.com/UKinVenezuela/status/214343370733142016 he was the last of 3 Venezuelans to carry it and since he wasnt part of a federated sport most outlets didnt find out he carried it until after he had returned to Venezuela, he explained this in one of his interviews for state run VTV (one of the biggest tv networks in the country) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG7VXwZjVSQ, there are also interviews of his in american outlets such as infowars, https://www.infowars.com/man-escapes-socialist-venezuela-backs-trump/ however I take it you wont accept a source from that site? I find it hard to understand how you can decide to delete an article due to something that is out of the persons hands (such as sources being deleted), even though there is an archive of media interviews of his in video format and on social media there are countless examples of his relevance. He is not the most famous venezuelan political figure by any means, but he is ceirtainly noteworthy to the point of being included in wikipedia. Thanks for your attention and sorry for my bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1202:AE00:C571:CEE9:BC4D:F2A (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 02:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Response(
    talk) What you are not taking in to account is that none of the articles you sent for either Laura nor Willy are even 1 year old, while John retired from freestyle at the end of 2012, and as you are aware being venezuelan, from 2012 till today many media outlets have been closed down and many others simply dont keep such long records of articles posted, which is why several of John's refferences listed in his wikipedia page are now unavailable, but as mentioned the videos are still there, including tv interviews with hundreds of thousands of views for one of the biggest networks in Colombia, RCN, https://www.facebook.com/AcquavivaFS/videos/10154360228121360/ so trying to compare Willy who became relevant only in the past 3 months and whos likelyhood of remaining relevant within a year are slim to none, or Laura, who managed to break a female world record (so not even the open record which was more than 3 times the amount she managed to break), but besides that is largely irrelevant as she has no influence in social media and is not much more than just an event promoter, doing a few minutes of search on social media will show you that John has been attacked by both the government and the oposition due to his opinions about them both, because of this he has been No-platformed from Venezuelan media time and time again, likewise with groups such as "Movimiento nacionalista Orden" who even though they are the fastest growing non MUD political movement currently they still never get invited on to any shows other than on tiny networks once or twice, I would find it hard to believe that there are many freestylers such as John Farnworth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Farnworth or Victor Rubilar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Rubilar whos main accomplishments are breaking some world records who are allowed on wikipedia, yet someone with the trajectory accross sports and now politics that John has is found to be irrelevant, so it leads me to believe that as has been said previously, this is another targetted attack on John, in his previous AFD you can even see that the person who put the article up for deletion went to twitter to brag about it saying that he was going to get Acquaviva kicked off wikipedia, which led the article to be given protection due to vandalism back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1202:AE00:747A:77:1E3B:D3DE (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk) 15:26, 19 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack in the Box Worldwide

Jack in the Box Worldwide (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)

Company fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. There are references but they come from unreliable sources and are general announcements or brief mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 19 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporate Presence

The Corporate Presence (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 tried to trim down the promotion but the only source I could find that is remotely in-depth would be this one from the Financial Times. Company fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. I left all the promotional content as I didn't want to make it seem like I gutted the information just prior to making the deletion recommendation, but much of the wording would need to be removed. CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:01, 19 August 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 00:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Edward and the Secret of VBS

Noah Edward and the Secret of VBS (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 self-published book by non-notable authors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward Book Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Edward and the Time Traveling Adventure. Article author and at least one IP has attempted disruption of these other discussions. --Finngall talk 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Both articles already deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 22 August 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  06:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Kakalidis

Dimitris Kakalidis (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. Dimitris Kakalidis is not notable neither as a writer/poet, nor as a scientist/thinker. The article is purely promotional, and lacks evidence proving Kakalidis' notability from third-party, independent, and reliable sources. "Omilos Eksipiretiton" is a legal entity created by Kakalidis himself in order to promote his "work"; see references of "Omilos" to the so-called "Great Master", "poet and philosopher Dimitris Kakalidis". On the other hand, all of Kakalidis books have been published by "Omilos", they are self-publications, since "Megas Seirios" is the printing house of "Omilos". The videos in the references are productions of "Omilos" ("νέα σειρά εκπομπών από τον Όμιλο Εξυπηρετητών" = a new series of videos by "Omilos Eksipiretiton", as noted on the Youtube Channel) The only source that seems to be independent and reliable is the article by Fevronia Christodoulidi and Paraskevi Kostopetrou. But it is not! Kostopetrou is Head of Megas Seirios Publications, while Fevronia Christodoulidi is a member of the "Omilos" too. The Greek article on Kakalidis has been deleted after discussion for lack of notability——Chalk19 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:44, 18 August 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  06:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue

List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue (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)

Hipparcos mapped millions of stars. The initial catalogue of 1997 included 118,200 stars. This list of 8 stars in Andromeda makes no sense at all. Uncited, unclear, non-notable. — JFG talk 19:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article was abandoned with only 8 stars in the list. The list is effectively pointless unless complete, and complete would be about 175,000 entries. Lithopsian (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the other arguments, but how are these "uncited" when the whole point of the list is "stars in the
    Hipparcos Catalogue", and they are even listed with their HIP numbers? That's obviously the citation. postdlf (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if this list were complete, probably 97% of the entries would be red links. If somebody a full listing of the Hipparcos catalogue, they'd probably download it from VizieR instead. Loooke (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1964 May 1 Parade

1964 May 1 Parade (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)

Unclear why this parade is more notable than any other parade. If it's an annual parade, there is no reason to have one for each seperate year, unless there is something distinctive that occurred. Here there is very surely not ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:02, 19 August 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  06:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberators (comics)

Liberators (comics) (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 is pure plot, with no out-of-universe info. This group has appeared only in The Ultimates 2, a comic book that already has an article. That article has a plot section of an appropiate size, so merging all this plot minutae would not be advisable Cambalachero (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted blanked by creator. ... discospinster talk 03:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic World Tour

Automatic World Tour (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 idea what this tour is about, I can't find any sources about it. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:35, 18 August 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. Unanimous consensus to delete, modulo the article's author. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coseer

Coseer (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 startup, created by an SPA that added spam links about the company around the encyclopedia in an attempt to promote it. The coverage of this article is your standard startup press coverage: non-notable awards, one-liners mentioning its use, coverage on industry blogs, and listings of products. These either don't meet the coverage expected under

WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:03, 19 August 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. Withdrawn, with thanks to SoWhy. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd E. Lenard

Lloyd E. Lenard (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)

Don't be fooled by the apparatus (the plethora of wikilinks and the massive infobox): this is not a notable person. Lenard was a parish commissioner (not something that generates inherent or other notability), wrote a few books (none of which seemed to have been published by a notable publishing house, or received any decent coverage), and served on a party committee (as one of 144). The most important claim, that he was "a pioneer in the establishment of the two-party system in his native Louisiana" (which, embarrassingly, made it to our front page), is in no way verified: it is typical Billy Hathorn-style puffery, turning local people into national heroes. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per
WP:BASIC multiple such sources can be combined to establish notability if no single source covers the subject in depth. I'll see if I can find the time to check the other 700 hits. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
OK I give you 24 hours. Drop everything and get to it. :) Drmies (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sir! Okay, here are two more articles about his books from 1994 and 2001: [5] [6] (part 2). An editorial about how he attacked people burning Confederate flags and defended both the flags and what they stand for (another one) Something about him having a role with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Something about a seminar (from 1961). Basically, there are newspaper articles about him from 1955 to 2001 at least, not always huge coverage but more than just run-of-the-mill local politician coverage (somewhat unfortunately because I really don't like "Confederacy is great!" people). Most of the rest is ads for his practice or similar. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 2001 book article claims he is listed in
WP:ANYBIO alone. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I've never considered the Who's Who to be anything and I thought that was the common way of thinking, but so far you are doing really well, SoWhy. For your next assignment, five more sources while juggling three soft-boiled eggs. Hey thanks: I'll look at a few more things you found and probably withdraw this. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Who's Who might be considered an American equivalent to
WP:LIBRARY yourself, it's free!). Regards SoWhy 16:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:03, 19 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Organising Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist)

Central Organising Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) (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)

Insufficiently notable, and the sources do not establish any notability. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definately notable. COC, CPI(ML) was one of the three main inheritors of the original CPI(ML). The party had branches across the country. Just see the passage on COC, CPI(ML) in Andhra Pradesh, which alone certifies notablity. --Soman (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Mz7 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Roe

Eugene Roe (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)

Eugene Roe was one of the medics in

significant coverage. The character "Eugene Roe" in the Band of Brothers miniseries was a dramatic construct; there is no evidence of his having met a Belgian nurse during the Battle of the Bulge. Roe as good as many other good combat medics. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable,

secondary sources, the subject is not notable at this time. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mark Windows

Mark Windows (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 am unable to find significant third party coverage of this individual per

WP:BIO. The only third-party source given (NY Times) only identifies him as the person in a photo but does not mention him otherwise. ... discospinster talk 14:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

They are interpretation of primary sources. We can't take a statement from someone and describe it as antisemitic, we have to get a professionally-published secondary or tertiary source that identifies the statement as antisemitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will work harder to get him exposed in a primary source. BM85194 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
secondary or tertiary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 18 August 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  06:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Valley

Swiss Valley (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 housing complex with no claim to notability per

WP:NPLACE
.

Also adding for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:06, 19 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SE Ranking

SE Ranking (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 business that does not meet notability criteria outlined in

WP:CORP. Sources that mention the subject are mostly non-independent (press releases) or just standard business directory listings. Many of the references do not even mention SE Ranking. No significant coverage. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 19 August 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, nac SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irshad Hussain

Irshad Hussain (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 coverage in RS. there are numerous namesakes in Gnews. Saqib (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxanthippe: he contributed to most of the articles/work, but i don't see him as being cited or attributed. Am I missing something? --Saqib (talk) 22:02, 21 August 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 00:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Ashley

Vernon Ashley (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 evidence of independent notability, very little source support. Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. Your source for the flags flying at half-mast is a government press release, not media coverage. Which means MPR is the only notability-assisting source here, but that's not enough sourcing to get him over
WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I added a citation from the Argus Leader-thank you-RFD (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Argus Leader citation is a 100-word blurb, not substantive coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the sources brought by SoWhy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:23, 18 August 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 Sportlobster. Mz7 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cary

Nicholas Cary (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 company he cofounded is notable--he is not. The material here is inappropriate for an encyclopedia--his parents' accomplishments , his amateur athletics, his girlfriend. The sources are trivial gossip notes. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The definition of an encyclopedia is 'giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject' this is what I've done. Perhaps the subject matter doesn't interest you but he's been documented heavily around his 'amatuer athletic' achivements and charitable donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiebaron (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Eddiebaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NATHLETE for that. I definitely think he's more notable than his partner Olivia arben, an article on whom by the same editor I speedied, and we can reconsider this in future if his subsequent career gets more attention, but right now as Sportlobster seems to be notable a redirect seems best. The author says he is a friend of the subject and this article is clearly the result of some thought so I'm sorry about this, but this isn't right for us at the moment. (Just to explain to the page creator - all of this material e.g. family background could be appropriate if this person was already notable - but it’s not enough for us to take an article on by itself, especially if it’s from your own knowledge of your friend and not from published material.) Blythwood (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:19, 18 August 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  07:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hammarskjold

Philip Hammarskjold (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)

Stub cites a photo caption and a press release. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found plenty of PR and brief quotes, but nothing substantive in arms length, reliable, secondary sources. Does not meet

WP:BIO. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that a tag for improvement is in order. However, believe he passes
    WP:ANYBIO. Featured in national business publications such as Forbes, passing the 3rd clause (The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.) Hyungjoo98 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Did you actually click through on that purported Forbes link? It looked like a computer-generated filler page to me, not a feature article... Carrite (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 10:02, 18 August 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 00:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Khana

Chai Khana (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:CORPDEPTH, insufficient sources, promotional tone. Reads like a part of their website. Kleuske (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:06, 18 August 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 00:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Shegerian

John Shegerian (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)

Spammy advertorial about self-promoting businessman. Little independent in-depth coverage. Another case of using Wikipedia for

promotion. Too much about his personal life, his horses, and his causes. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:08, 18 August 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 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carney R. Shegerian

Carney R. Shegerian (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)

As per

promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, confirming my PROD: An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable attorney. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions or PR driven. Awards listed are not significant, and notability is not inherited from clients. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. advertising. G11 is appropriate. I suppose coverage of the cases could be found, but it's irrelevant--we could probablty on that basis include every trial attorney. The area o the business he is in depends on publicity, but he can get it without us. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 August 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 00:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mii Baby

Mii Baby (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 don't think this quite fits any CSD criteria, but the reference are all just passing mentions or hosted by the company itself. It shows no importance or any coverage in any news sources.

buzz 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:20, 18 August 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 00:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abi & Abi Pictures

Abi & Abi 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)

Non-notable company. Fails GNG, and is sourced by dubious sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 18 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba Dokur

Tuba Dokur (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)

Contested prod, fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 18 August 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 Yaşar Doğu. Mz7 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinem Doğu

Sinem Doğu (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)

Contested prod, fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 18 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceren Alkan

Ceren Alkan (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)

Contested prod, fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 18 August 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 00:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baker and Partners

Baker and Partners (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 unremarkable law firm; significant RS coverage to meet

WP:SPIP, or other unsuitable sources. Likely created for compensation; pls see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Another_day.2C_another_sockfarm. PROD removed by a SPA Special:Contributions/Nathannicholls. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 18 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne McCafferty

Joanne McCafferty (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 seems to have been created in relation to her role as a failed political candidate, which doesn't confer notability. Her business roles and her past as a chief of staff for a state government minister are also not notable. Grahame (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:17, 19 August 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. Consensus here is that the subject's publication record (and, more specifically, how often those publications are cited) is insufficent for

WP:PROF. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Eugene Plotkin (mathematician)

Eugene Plotkin (mathematician) (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 was de-prodded, so I am bringing it to AfD. I don't believe that the subject passes

WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Thanks for doing the citation research in the detailed nomination. However, I think that the MathSciNet h-index of 12 just scrapes through in a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as the listed publications in significant publications are an inclincation to consider significance indeed for WP:PROF. Although it's a fact we like the easy cases such as honorary professorships or similar, the publications alone can be considered sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, what do you mean? Which of the listed publication venues do you consider to be particularly significant? Among the publications listed, the journals where they appeared are quite ordinary or low ranked in math. E.g. from the 310 math journals listed in JCR with an impact factor, Journal of Algebra is ranked 168; International Journal of Algebra and Computation, and Comptes rendus are tied for rank 257. Communication in Algebra does not (as far as I can tell) have a JCR impact factor, and neither do Vestnik of St. Petersburg University and Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. These are not the kind of publication venues that are considered to be particularly significant and prestigious. Note that in relation to C1,
      WP:PROF explicitly says: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Nsk92 (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
It's having them cited that is sufficient (in this case marginally). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding the citations -- yes, that's an individual judgement call (as I said, in my opinion, in the absence of any additional indicators, I personally do not consider citability data in this case to be strong enough, although others may disagree). I was responding to SwisterTwister's comments above ``as the listed publications in significant publications are an inclincation to consider significance indeed for WP:PROF" and ``...the publications alone can be considered sufficient". Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Beautifully put by the nom.I had some thoughts on Xanthippe's arguments but the h-index seems low even for a scrape.If someone can bring any other argument of notability, I am willing to change my mind!Regards:)Godric on Leave (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not much useful at ru:Евгений Борисович Плоткин. He might sometimes appear as "Evgeny...", but no leads found. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Apparently I removed a BLPPROD from this article in early 2014. He seems to be a reasonably successful mathematics professor. But being reasonably successful as a professor isn't (and shouldn't be) the same as being notable here, and I just don't see anything that stands out as a justification for keeping this article. And it doesn't seem like it would cause much damage to the encyclopedia to let it go; it's not like it has a lot of incoming links or anything like that. We have a lot of other articles on academics of comparable or smaller notability, but that's also not a good reason to keep this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:19, 19 August 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 (

Help! 13:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Roll

Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Roll (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)

See

the essay on list cruft, which this list is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The list fails to meet Wikipedia standards.TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to discuss please delete it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the article creator themself has requested it deleted twice now, I have tagged it G7 which will allow for a soft-delete. Which,
    velut luna 10:35, 18 August 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. Per

beforehand. ~ Rob13Talk 16:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sumana Secondary School

Sumana Secondary School (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 sources are contextless listings. The article was approved by SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) despite the obvious issues with the sources, which have not been appreciably changed since the article was approved. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung:--Inspite of the numerous times I agree with you, I dare say that your argument looks like some sort of circular reasoning.If the WP prefer(s) to operate in a type of positive-feedback-loop triggered solely by precedents, bringing any change anywhere will be terrifically difficult.Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per long-standing consensus at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed notability be regarded as notable. The flip side is that all but a few elementary schools are automatically regarded as non-notable. Inclusionists and deletionists each have something to like and something to dislike and we can all spend our time working on other things without slogging through 5,000 notability challenges a year... Carrite (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closure stated--Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well......do not make much sense and were discounted....Cheers:)Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RFC or no RFC about the applicability of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale, hundreds of AfD debates have been decided the same way — there is a long and well-established consensus, and I support it. Carrite (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
if you disagree with the close of that RfC. Also per that RfC, offline sources should be taken into account in deletion rationales.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 01:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. That is a misunderstanding of the admittedly very confused conclusion of that RfC. Checking back, it says there is no consensus that a mere appeal to SCHOOLOUTCOMES is sufficient. It also says there is no consensus to change the almost invariable practice that such schools will be considered notable. (If you see a certain amount of contradiction here, I agree with you). In practice, even since that RfC, almost all secondary school articles for which there is proof of real existence from a third party source have been kept, just as before. What has changed is that we have reasonably enough become a little more skeptical amount those with no sourcing besides their web site. There are sources here--see the previous versions of the article history. They're not very good sources, but I think they're sufficient. I also think it would be very valuable to try to find something better. Removing what sources there are and then sayign "unsourced" is not a fair approach--rather, their adequacy should be discussed at the afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG: something else the RfC found was that the systemic bias arguments were strong for maintaining the existing practice. One of our core content policies is that Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and this same principle applies to coverage. There is still a clear consensus on keeping schools in North America and Europe based on the regional sources that inevitably exist per
    WP:NPOSSIBLE, which constitutes part of the notability guideline just as much as the GNG does. I personally would actually support a policy of redirecting most schools towards municipalities or school districts, but this will never happen for those schools in the West. So long as this is the case, the principles behind NPOV require us to hold schools in other parts of the world to the same standards we hold schools in the West to re:notability. That means extending them the generosity of NPOSSIBLE if they show they are likely to have independent sourcing. I think that has been demonstrated here, and thus it should be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:GNG, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother's International School, Upleta and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi]. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @TonyBallioni:--While closing a long RFC, good arguments from both sides are mentioned (typically) but what matters is ultimately what stands out over one-another--which is(??) written in the nutshell.I am sympathetic to the arguments of systemic bias but the RFC closing statement wrote--Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources......If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted.I am certainly sure that those sources are the ones that SwisterTwister has brought! And, if these are the sources, we aspire for in an AfD, I can create thousands of articles on schools spread across the length and breadth of my country which are not yet covered on WP! Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Winged Blades of Godric: yes, that's the point. The offline sources ST has brought forth indicate it is likely that there are other sources that would at least meet the standards we hold Western schools to, which is to be honest, still just basically existing as any local school will have plenty of coverage in regional sourcing. This argument has always been why we kept schools, and was mentioned directly in the RfC close. Letting it basically be South Asian and African schools that we delete even though per NPOSSIBLE they would likely meet our sourcing standards if we had access to local non-English print media would be inappropriate and a massive violation of NPOV. Cordless Larry, the example of one poorly attended AfD for a European school in a non-anglophone country does not negate that as a whole, we keep Western secondary schools. Try to get rid of a random George Washington High and see what happens. We should by NPOV hold them to the same standards as schools in other countries, which the arguments in favour of deletion never do. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no, Cordless Larry, I know you weren't. Unfortunately our effort to clarify this with the RfC only muddied the waters. For what it's worth, I'm actually highly considering changing my vote to draftify per your argument: WP:N is only a guideline for inclusion while WP:V is a core content policy. When policies and guidelines are in tension, policies win out. I do need to consider how to balance V with NPOV re: schools, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send back to draft because the draft was accepted despite all of its references being non-verifying. The draft author should have been told this and given the chance to provide proper sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    meeting notability guidelines far outweigh age-old practices/precedents as valid AfD arguments.To echo DGG I too seriously feel that the closure shall be re-ammended.I am not even minimally faulting the closers but it's close has become a new bone of contention among numerous School-AfD participants when it ought to have resolved another contention about SCHOOLOUTCOMES etc! And lastly, how these articles make way through AfC?! Godric on Leave (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, I missed the reviewer.Usual shabby affair!Godric on Leave (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primefac is just an editor like the rest of us, not some sort of supereditor, and the opinion of the closers has been challenged. At the end of the day, like most RfCs this was inconclusive, and its purpose (which was simply to formalise guidelines, not destroy existing consensus) was also misinterpreted. But primarily here I'm questioning Rob's pronouncement that certain opinions don't count because he and Primefac say so. Not how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an RfC to test whether the statement "Notability is presumed for secondary schools that verifiably exist" has consensus. That RfC was closed as "no consensus". I've double-checked that interpretation with the RfC closer, who confirmed that was the close. If you want to contest that close, see
    WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, which explains how consensus is evaluated. Do with that information what you will, but do not be surprised if a closer does what the instructions say to do and discounts rationales that are not based in policies/guidelines. ~ Rob13Talk 23:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. One of the sources that Swister provided (this PDF here) is a 173-page file that lists government schools in Sri Lanka as of a date in 2016. I checked the first seventeen pages and found about 350 that provide instruction up through Grade 11 (essentially, what the British call "O Level"). And those same seventeen pages show about an equal number of schools that provide instruction up through Grade 13 ("A Level"). That's about 700 schools in the first seventeen pages, suggesting that the entire document shows something on the order of 7,000 such schools. Think about that -- if existence is the only thing needed to justify an article on a secondary school, this single PDF document can serve as the basis for 7,000 articles, each article being sourced to a single line in the document. And which national/state/provincial government on the planet doesn't keep such lists? Using existence as the only criterion, we'll have well more than a million such articles, the great majority of them just one or two sentences long. Indeed, that's all it took for me to add the school's information into the article for the town in which it is located (see Talawakelle#Main schools). As for re-directing to the article on Talawakelle, doing that for every secondary school on the planet would lead to a lot more than a million re-directs, because many schools with names in non-English languages will have alternate English spellings. They say "re-directs are cheap", but are they that cheap? I think not. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the first I'm aware of the RfC, but reading it now, it seems pretty clear that we always keep secondary schools is no longer a valid argument. NewYorkActuary estimates, above, that there's a million secondary schoods. English-language wikipedia has about 5.5 million pages. Is anybody really arguing that something like 18% of our pages should be for secondary schools? That would be absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 26 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Cotton (Manitoba politician)

James Cotton (Manitoba politician) (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 article was created (by me) in 2007, a time when any leader of a registered federal or provincial party in Canada was automatically considered notable enough for a biographical entry. Standards have changed since then, and there's nothing to indicate that the subject passes the current threshold for notability – he never received any real depth or breadth of press coverage, and not only was he not a candidate in the one election for which he was party leader, but the party didn't field any candidates in that election and dissolved shortly thereafter. I'm still an inclusionist when it comes to ambiguous cases, but this isn't one of these; the subject pretty obviously fails

WP:NPOL, and there's absolutely no reason to believe the article can be transformed into something more credible. CJCurrie (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator is entirely correct that Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians have evolved in the decade since he created this — we used to automatically accept all leaders of political parties, even minor fringe ones, but in 2017 we've deprecated that, and now require that the person is actually sourceable enough to pass
    WP:GNG in his own right. But Cotton just doesn't really have that — the party failed to nominate any candidates at all in the election that occurred during his leadership, and so the depth of coverage he needs to clear GNG just isn't actually there. Including his name in the party's article, without a separate standalone bio, gives exactly the same amount of information that we can actually source properly here. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Now if only we could change the guideline that says all athletes are automatically notable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 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 (

A7). — IVORK Discuss 04:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Abhishek Bhattacharya

Abhishek Bhattacharya (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 of this article is a student leader of a minor political party, and the whole paragraph looks like something that could be put as an introduction section in a personal blog or website, even with the controversy which is "cited" with a Twitter link. There are no descriptions for how this person would show significance or events that would meet

WP:N. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. 🖉← 01:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Had tagged with
WP:A7 in it's current form doesn't it? — IVORK Discuss 01:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy Delete. As everyone said: Unnotable. No sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article fails to establish any notability for this person.TH1980 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 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 01:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Littlest Pet Shop: Unleashed

Littlest Pet Shop: Unleashed (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

talk, contribs) 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 18 August 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 consensus for a particular action has occurred in this discussion. Some of the !votes on both sides of the debate are subjective, rather than being guideline- or policy-based, and several users have opined for merging, the latter of which can be discussed further on an article talk page if desired. North America1000 00:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack

Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack (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)

There is nothing noteworthy about any of these reactions. They are all totally predictable. The reactions of the principal leaders are already detailed in

2017 Barcelona attack and can be condensed; anything more than that is over the top. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

And no, it's not as simple as continually deleting it from there. You have to delete it, argue with someone, wait for it to come back, delete it and argue some more. Lasts for six days, on average. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 18 August 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. by

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Curved ceiling

Curved ceiling (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 doesn't turn up a specific place in Iran with this name in English. With no references, unverifiable. May need renaming to a Farsi place name with proper references. As it is, no encyclopedic value and no substantive content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:37, 18 August 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 01:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vann Chow

Vann Chow (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 looked and looked, but I could only find one article about this person in a possibly reliable source. This makes the author fail our

criteria for the notability of authors. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that the official page of 2016 Wattys award winners lists over one hundred winners, including ten alone in the category in which Vann Chow's story "won". I don't mean to take away from her achievement, but the awards seem to be geared more towards increasing Wattpad's brand recognition than elevating the works of authors.
    talk) 00:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 18 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CandyRat Records

CandyRat Records (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)

Only refs here are to Allrecords, YouTube, and the company's own website. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, MySpace (MySpace!), Spotify, Vimeo, and various concert announcements and ticket events, but I didn't find non-trivial discussion of the actual record label in any independent reliable secondary published sources. Does not meet

WP:ORG, and is being used as implied evidence of notability in the articles of some of its clients. KDS4444 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 18 August 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) 00:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeatu Obianwu

Ifeatu Obianwu (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)

Utterly fails

WP:MUSICBIO. Apocheir (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 18 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_August_18&oldid=1142619915"