Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sajjad Ali. ansh666 01:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love Letter (Sajjad Ali album)

Love Letter (Sajjad Ali album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with article on Sajjad Ali. If one goes to the article on Sajjad Ali, one will see that the tracks from this album are already listed. The minimal amount of content the article on the album has besides track listings should not prove too difficult to merge with the article on the singer. Vorbee (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:56, 13 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moqui

Moqui (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 software. Google search revealed no in-depth coverage in reliable sources - just passing mentions, routine listings and PR activities (less than 4,000 hits for Moqui ERP). The linked book (ref #2) is the "official documentation" by the developer/founder, and not an independent source. GermanJoe (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah just a self-published book. Nothing there, no (or almost no) independent coverage I can find. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only sourced to its documentation on github and primary website. Also no reference in any secondary source can be found in search. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Sharma

Divya Sharma (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)

Seems to be riding notability based solely as a participant of BBC's 100 Women show. The criteria for being on the list is just a survey of different women around the world, and not anything especially notable. Other than being on the show, person is

According to the BBC, they try to pick "100 influential and inspirational women around the world every year." But the question arises as to whether being selected and volunteering to participate in the program makes the person notable and getting press as a result of being on the program now makes them notable. Some people on the list are already notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women on whether the women listed on this program are inherently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches yield no results Earnsthearthrob (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even "30 under 30" or similar lists make people notable, being in a list of 100, especially when it is not clear if it is the first 100 chosen, or as is more likely, keeps going till they get 100 participants, is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. not meting GNG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:20, 13 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Plain Folks Music Organization

Just Plain Folks Music Organization (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 19 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan D. Winitz

Jan D. Winitz (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 falls under

• WP:N
  Jan D. Winitz is an antique oriental rug collecter and dealer who is not widely known outside of San Francisco Bay Area art collector/antique oriental rug connoisseurship circles.
• WP:V
  The references given for this article include:
  • A write-up on Robb Report (a web-zine featuring directional content from luxury products providers);
  • A piece in Gentry Home (a home-decorating magazine);
  • A piece covering antique oriental rug collecting, shown in the Chubb Collectors Newsletter, featured on CHUBB's website (an insurance broker);
  • An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle.
• Not featured as a reference in the article, but found during this discussion:
  • A piece from the Wall Street Journal
• WP:NOT Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements
  . Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
• WP:NPOV One of the article's main contributors appears to have a close connection with its subject.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 23:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  05:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  05:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 06:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete As nominator.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  00:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking your !vote. Your nomination counts as a delete !vote. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete I can add little to what was said in the nomination. Basically a total failure to have coverage outside of very promotional sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He had a feature in the Wall Street Journal, found here and was covered in local San Fran media in the 1980s at least once ([1]). I think at least the former should be considered in this discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article in the Wall Street Journal is not always clearcut journalism, as this piece from the WSJ's competitor Forbes explains. The piece in the WSJ may have originated from Tobin & Associates, a PR firm. Coincidentally enough, one of the principals at Tobin & Associates began their career at the San Francisco Chronicle. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  00:33, 14 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis (singer-songwriter)

Ellis (singer-songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, only references cited in article are local coverage. The awards mentioned are also of questionable notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coverage does not raise above the routine, local sort.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Film Critics Circle Awards

Atlanta Film Critics Circle Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable film award. Debuted this year, with minimal local coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 00:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 00:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 00:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete New award, no notability established yet. There are zillions of these all over the world, and most do not sustain much in the way of notability. This one is far too new to have established any notability, and searches for sources turn up precious little to sustain. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hammersoft....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:09, 17 December 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.

Everything Was Beautiful, and Nothing Hurt

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

DePRODed by creator under misunderstanding of Reliable Sources. Concern was: Unreliable (inacceptable/disalloiwed) sources, and far too soon. This subject should wait until release has been effected and confirmed by WP:Reliable Sources such as mainstream music publications. Fails to meet criteria at

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- a google search shows it has been officially announced.--
  Rusf10 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep - Passes
  WP:MUSIC; Existence confirmed by several reliable sources, with tracklist, first single, album cover and everything: SPIN, Billboard, Rolling Stone Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- a touch too soon, but the release has been confirmed and it will clearly be a notable album; no point in deleting it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Earnsthearthrob (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are plenty of articles about albums that will be released in months time, also the existence of this album has been confirmed. ---- 🎼
  talk) 00:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Doc Strange. He said everything that needs to be said. SNOW close. South Nashua (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Doc Strange. Passes
  WP:MUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, doesn't meet
  WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ajf773 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, is a very long way off from meeting GNG. Schwede66 03:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable outside of temporary attention for political candidacy and does not otherwise meet GNG. Kiwichris (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete defeated candidates for political office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I wouldn't say Sharma is a very long way off from meeting GNG but doesn't meet
  too soon. J947 ^{(c · m)} 04:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph Zadik Aleph

Aleph Zadik Aleph (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is encyclopedic and has an entry, for example, in the "New Jewish Encyclopedia". There is a lot of reliance on one source. There is a template for this problem. It isn't there. There is a lot of coverage so plenty to choose from. Altogether a legitimate
  WP:BEFORE? I'm not saying it doesn't but did not find the relevant history. gidonb (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Gidonb: I'm not sure what you mean. I did do a check for relevant sources before nominating this, and found none. Perhaps you could add the "New Jewish Encyclopedia" source to the page. Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See sources below. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: just needs more sources. I didn't delve too deeply to find [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], which partially demonstrate how widespread the org is & recognized for their awards. = paul2520 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Eyal

Nir Eyal (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)

Another enterpreneur bio with very little to no independent detail about the individual (vice the companies he's associated with). Where's the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little evidence of notability and seems rather promotional. Number 57 09:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-known business expert. Easily meets the
  WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- an advertorially aimed article, with an ext link in the body, which is typical of such promotional articles. I'm not seeing notability here; the sources are passing mentions or
  WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep He's regularly cited in the media as an expert and is very well known in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Also a Wall Street Journal best selling author. I'll try to improve the article a bit to make it align better with the guidelines. kjemperud (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Judging by the username of the editor who uploaded the image to
  WP:COI with the subject, describing them as "a good friend" on their website (which is linked from their userpage). I spotted this after becoming suspicious that they had edited the article within half an hour of its creation and were somehow aware of the file on common and have only had seven editing sessions since 2011 yet managed to spot this AfD. I think that their !vote should therefore be discounted. I have left a note on their talk page advising them to stop editing the article. Number 57 10:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment
  WP:GNG. As those guidelines clearly state, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" which is clearly the case. For anyone doubting that fact, just look at some of the sources included on this version of the page (including articles by MIT Technology Review and Wired dedicated to Eyal's work) which Number 57 has since removed. The edits I made were just in the interest of cleaning up the article (e.g. removed inline external link, restructured the article a bit as the sections were a bit illogical, and added some updated sources since a lot of the current ones are quite old), so I'd suggest that someone without a COI look through what's available here to re-add whatever such a person would deem to be relevant. Kjemperud (talk) 17:20, 18 December 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.

List of Teletoon original series (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

Some more in-depth reasoning can be found here, although not all of it is necessarily relevant for an AfD: Template talk:Teletoon#List of Teletoon original series decommissioning Modernponderer (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 05:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 05:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 05:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 05:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge to
  List of programs broadcast by Teletoon, where they have sections for original programming. No need for duplication. Any sources can be carried over. The redirect should be kept as a valid search term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment on merge proposal: The lists are already substantially merged. The remaining content is generally unsuitable for the other page. Modernponderer (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But the page name is suitable for a redirect, which would complete the merge. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  List of programs broadcast by Teletoon. That list can easily (and already does, in fact) distinguish programs that are original to Teletoon from programs where Teletoon purchased rebroadcast rights, without needing two separate lists to coexist. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 17 December 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian nouns

Bulgarian nouns (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's not even a Wikipedia article on "English nouns" - it redirects to a tiny paragraph in a larger-scoped article. This seems a bit excessive, no? It also hasn't been sourced since 2006. Surely it deserves better? Improve or redirect. Coin945 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 06:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale given. The topic is obviously notable and the article's content doesn't raise any red flags: I don't see any of the OR that is rife in the main article. English nouns are notable too, and the reason they don't have a standalone article probably has to do with the overall thinness of English nominal morphology. – Uanfala (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for
  invalid deletion reason
  . Also the claim it is unsourced is totally not true. It has print reference. Comparison with English noun is also invalid reason, Bulgarian nouns have wider scope due to the nature of the language. also readily sources for expansion

1. Lexical access in Bulgarian: Nouns and Adjectives with and without floating vowel: –Peer reviewed Catalan Journal of Linguistics
2. Anomalous use of definiteness and gender in some types of noun –Croatian Journal
3. Clustering Clitics in Bulgarian Nominal Constituents .
4. Comparative study of French and Bulgarian human general nouns –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per Uanfala Felicia (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not "dictionary article " if you indeed do read the article. It covers many aspects in well labeled multiple sections also in academic prose. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A reasonable article explaining the construction of nouns in this language. bd2412 T 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Several similar articles exists, no reason why this particular one should go. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an entirely encyclopedic article with sourcing (more could potentially be added, but the claim that it's unsourced is rubbish). Nominator should pay closer attention prior to nominations like this, and JPL should remember to read the article before expressing an opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Informative article. I don't see a reason why it should be deleted. Quickfingers (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no rigid rules for how to cover grammar on Wikipedia, but grammar is definitely an encyclopedic topic. While there's nothing on English nouns (which have neither gender nor declension), other languages are covered in articles like
  Sanskrit nouns, Russian declension, Latin declension, etc. Arguably there might be a better way to organise this material, but that's certainly not reason to delete it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 13 December 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.

Contender (stock character)

Contender (stock character) (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)

WP:OR, WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 07:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:OR. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of usage in literature or character analysis, not like underdog. This is like saying a competitor is a stock character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So far as I recall, this was created to resolve incoming links made to the word "contender" in the context of describing fictional characters. If deleted, it should be redirected to an article that has coverage of the character type, perhaps to
  Underdog (term). bd2412 T 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• I'm not seeing anything in Google Scholar sufficient to say that this is a notable literary academic term, but I think the idea probably should be redirected somewhere appropriate per BD2412 and
  WP:ATD-R. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete it pretty much duplicates
  Underdog (term) while not being a useful redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The page has 142 incoming links. Some are template-generated, but others are not. Something should be done, at least, to insure that those links point somewhere useful for the reader. bd2412 T 00:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing the page from the template should fix the majority, the rest should be changed to point to
      Underdog (term) instead (although I would be of a mind to change it to Underdog (trope) to avoid it being a dicdef)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Underdog (term) could be renamed to Underdog (stock character) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that as a trope it extends beyond single stock characters, entire teams can also be "underdogs" e.g. The Mighty Ducks. "Stock character" implies it is always one person._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete Whoever authored this article may find their approach welcome at
  WP:Original research that hasn't even so much as been masked by a single reference. This is certainly an archetype we can all recognize, but we don't create articles based solely on our own observations of narrative trends. Again, there's a voluminous and very interesting project devoted to exactly this purpose, but Wikipedia is not it. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:03, 19 December 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. No further deletion discussions need be opened on this for at least 2 years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Like Love (song)

Loud Like Love (song) (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)

Song/single does not appear to satisfy independent notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (

• Comment. So why didn't you consider merging it to the album? --Michig (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that we are even having this AfD is sincerely absurd, since an exact same one was held over a year ago and the result was Keep. Nothing has changed since. However, given this occurrence of simply ignoring plain precedent, let us reiterate what has already been written and agreed upon.

In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules. I apologize for not having removed that unduly-added box myself, from the mere addition of which this discussion apparently results.

The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.

To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:

1. Its subject is notable.
2. It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
3. It is also related and contains information on other highly notable artists, in this case Bret Easton Ellis, who have collaborated with the main artist. Information on that collaboration cannot be found in any other article.
4. It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
5. The article has existed on Wikipedia for over four years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
6. Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.

In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to album Does not meet
  WP:PERMASTUB. All of the information could be included in the album article and there is no reason to have a separate article. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The refs are weak but passable, topic generally passes gng, suggest user AR adds in a couple of other refs to prevent further afds. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Legitimate article. Sufficient coverage. gidonb (talk) 22:15, 18 December 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinmetall MAN High Altitude Truck Expedition

Rheinmetall MAN High Altitude Truck Expedition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no independent coverage save what appears to be a press release on Australasian Transport News website which was published on 8 Nov and fortuitously accessed on 8 Nov. other refs are to Rheinmetall MAN. Totally promotional,

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Retain - certainly in the near term. As I created the page I'm not sure how much weight my opinion might actually carry, but I would like to say it was created as I genuinely think it is an interesting and high enough profile event for inclusion on Wikipedia. My opening gambit for retention would be that in these early stages coverage may not be huge in the wider world, but as the challenge progress and when (if) the team are successful, I strongly suspect coverage will grow significantly. So at the very least, I would suggest leaving things as they are until a week or so after the conclusion of the attempt. If it falters many hundreds of meters from the target, then maybe just include the attempt as a one-liner on the on the mountain page, but if they should succeed, let's see what sort of traction the story gains and revisit the retain/delete debate? I would also add, for what it is worth, that I created this page out of genuine interest in the subject (I have been there) and I worked hard to make sure it was as far away from promotional in content and tone as I possibly could, and I have since creation watched with interest (but not had to take any action yet myself...) as random IP addresses (connected to the event I suspect...) have been attempting to insert the type of promotional link I would never include and wholly disapprove of. Finally, I have just conducted a Google search and have found a handful of mentions of the event across the web, so things are perhaps picking up. I can link to these if anybody wishes it. Just ask.SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Surface Agent……………..A valid subject. Coverage isn’t extensive at present, but as SA points out, the more success the expedition has, the more coverage it should/will pick up. Some coverage can already be found with any search engine. I found these in 5 minutes.

http://maquina-de-combate.com/blog/?p=54927

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/an-unstoppable-mission-for-a-determined-man/news-story/b61edce3c1a86c8ec9c51be8858b5f50

http://transporte.rutamotor.com/los-camiones-rheinmetall-man-rumbo-la-cima-objetivo-alcanzar-los-6690-m-altitud/

https://www.fullyloaded.com.au/product-news/1711/warren-part-of-rheinmetall-man-altitude-tilt

http://www.wkndheroes.com/se-instala-en-chile-el-refugio-mas-alto-del-mundo-en-los-ojos-del-salado-6-100-msnm/

http://www.herefordtimes.com/News/15651134.Hereford_veteran_aims_to_reach_the_highest_point_on_earth_accessible_to_motor_vehicles/

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/an-unstoppable-mission-for-a-determined-man/news-story/b61edce3c1a86c8ec9c51be8858b5f50

Wolpat (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those weblinks above are to copies of the press release, most of them even use the same sentences, and pics. May I suggest that if this article is to be kept, it should be for Policy based reasons rather than the we like it so it should not be deleted reasons provided so far, as is the case with all deletion discussions? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roxy, Zalophus californianus., I suppose the first thing I should say is that in no way would I ever propose keeping a Wikipedia entry because I like it. And that's not something I believe I've done here. As previously mentioned, I genuinely think it is an interesting and high enough profile event for inclusion on Wikipedia. A statement that is a very very long way from simply saying I like it so keep it, or anything similar to that. Secondly, I agree with your note about the sourcing of those supporting links. However, having been involved in journalism/PR in a previous working life, I can perhaps advise you that is exactly how most stories/events/occasions are reported in their initial stages. That's what a press release exists for. It is pretty much it's sole purpose in life; to be repeated to promote something. It's only when an event gains media traction that writers/journalists etc start offering up stories and so on that expand on these original press releases and quotes from them. And when this happens, they will be linked. And again, reverting back to my original comments, I think this will happen with this event as it progresses, and so yet again I will repeat my view that I strongly suspect coverage will grow significantly over time, so at the very least I would suggest leaving things as they are until a week or so after the conclusion of the attempt. If it falters many hundreds of meters from the target, then maybe just include the attempt as a one-liner on the on the mountain page. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So no then? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of independent coverage from
  third-party reliable sources. Press releases and self-published sources do not convey notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete -- Article fails
  WP:EVENT criteria. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. All coverage appears to be press releases and promotional materials related to the manufacturer. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I feel the emotion of the article creator and his longish comment to retain it "for possible future coverage" (as he thinks) but per Wikipedia policy
  WP:EVENT this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia now and should be deleted. It also lacks true independed sources as majorit appear to be press releases by the manufacturer –Ammarpad (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, but good luck Seems like it might be notable, someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar Satyal

Ajay Kumar Satyal (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Other than the bloomberg listing, no evidence of notability is provided. --Muhandes (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 13 December 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 per G7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Star of U.P. (reality show)

Singing Star of U.P. (reality show) (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 16:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 16:22, 11 December 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.

Alice Dwyer

Alice Dwyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although this article is weakly observable. But there are three more sources of personality^[1][2][3] . Mr User:HindWIKI what is your comment? --IamIRAQI (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. HINDWIKI • CHAT 23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both requirements from
  WP:BIO - significant coverage in multiple reliable published secondary sources - are fulfilled. I have added another reference to the article and as HindWIKI already pointed out, many more can be found.Inwind (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• KeepArticles like this are useful for those of us who are interested in German culture and just want to look something up quickly. Yes, the information here is available in the German Wikipedia, and in more detail there, but it's convenient to have this in English. I don't see what is gained by deleting the article and reducing the coverage of German culture.JD Fan (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the recipient of
  WP:NACTOR and this information is right in the lead section. It is the most important film award in Germany. I also added 2 German sources –Ammarpad (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Certainly the sourcing and content could use some substantial augmentation (given that she won a Deutscher Filmpreis award and has, according to the lead, had roles in over 70 films, I presume there must be additional coverage in German language sources), but based just on what we have in the article at present, she seems to clear
  WP:NACTOR, if not by the widest margin ever. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:08, 19 December 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodoric

Rodoric (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)

Finding almost no coverage to even verify this article. The cheese does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not clear if this thing even exists. No sources in the article and none could be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 15 December 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. Notability not established, via significant coverage presented in reliable sources. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Rukundo

Olivier Rukundo (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 claims notability by association. Does not appear to pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rwanda-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete post doctoral research fellows are not notable. Way below the level of notability for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 15 December 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; significant rewrite/cleanup is desperately needed. However, notability is established and there are secondary sources present and more to be had. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astro (television)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Regardless of notability, this article would need

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 14:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 14:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 14:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. This is a major satellite broadcaster in Malaysia and it is also a company listed on the stock exchange. But I do agree that it needs major work and a thorough cleanup. – SMasters (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stub it then I don't object to speedy close, but as-is it's perilously close to G11 material. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree that this article to be deleted. I think we should do a major cleanup to this article by removing bad grammars, promotional-like contents and unnecessary infos, in order to be an encyclopedia article. Fandi89 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but stubify to a neutral state - Although I'm not Malaysian, I am aware of the company as being one of the biggest, if not the biggest television service provider in Malaysia, and a search confirms this status and results in coverage for the company: enough to pass
  csdnew 02:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep unarguably this meet notability guideline but AfD
  WP:BCAST, I will work in trimming down the promo language, but we shouldn't destroy while we are building –Ammarpad (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree. The Astro article will be deleted soon, I hope any administrators can keep this article. We can do a major cleanup to this article by removing some copyrighted materials and any unneccesary contents. Fandi89 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 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. Notability not established, via significant coverage presented in reliable sources. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Ryan

Samantha Ryan (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)

VP in EA - lacking depth of coverage required for GNG. Note that she shares a name with a more notable, yet seemingly unrelated, porn actress that was deleted in April 2017 - filtering out the porn actress hits in a BEFORE doesn't leave much, and the sourcing in the article is not sufficient. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with EA Mobile, as that's what she's known for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the present time, anyway. Every source employed in the article can be characterized as one of the following: 1) mentions the article subject only incidentally, 2) does not qualify as a
  WP:secondary or independent of the subject, or 3) fails to establish the kind of in-depth coverage we would need to clarify this individual's notability. The venturebeat.com and GamesIndustry.biz are the only reliable sources which are concerned with Ryan herself, and each is an eight-sentence blurb announcing her appointment. Hardly ongoing and in-depth coverage. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:18, 19 December 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. Notability is clearly lacking. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Cloud Computing

International Conference on Cloud Computing (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)

Sources in article do not establish notability. Content seems

International Conference on Services Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

International Congress on Big Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 13:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NEVENT due to lack of soures to estabilish notability. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, As I created the articles out of genuine interest, I do think some points should be clarified. First, the three conferences, also with some other conferences, form a federation. But from the very beginning, the conferences were held separately, so I chose to create the articles one by one instead of creating one page of federation. Second, they are organized by the Services Society. This is the fact and can't be denied. I tried to make sure they were far away from promotional in content and tone. Third, since these conferences are all published by IEEE and are recorded with high ratings by the conference rank, it's not surprising that some references are similar. The conferences attracted international attention among the participants, so it is of high interest to those who are interested in services computing, cloud computing or other subjects related to computing science.Sissicxi (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No sign of the significant independent coverage needed to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 19 December 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. The current version meets speedy delete criterion A7 (no claim of notability or importance); the earlier version is still A7 ("lists every known car" isn't a sufficient claim of importance, especially when it then goes on to basically say "except those we don't") and also meets G11 (blatantly a "come look at our website" 'article'). Accordingly I'm going ahead and speedily closing this. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DefineCar

DefineCar (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

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article has no references, and the only website cited at the end of the article is DefineCar's own website. Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 12 December 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.

Bacoor - Las Piñas Boundary Bridge

Bacoor - Las Piñas Boundary Bridge (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 bridge. I live in Las Piñas and I cannot find any reliable source that can attest to the notability of this bridge. Any material can be incorporated into the parent article on the road,

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 13:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete just a bridge with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 12 December 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.

Chikkajala

Chikkajala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced since 2006. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Would this few-line stub not be better served in a larger article? Coin945 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: any reliably-sourced detail could be made into a paragraph in Bangalore or History of Bangalore. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This places seems to be a whole village of 6000: [11], [12]. Meets
  WP:GEOLAND as a populated place. Article should be expanded to cover the whole village. MB 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – I agree with user MB.
  WP:GEOLAND. I've added a couple of reliable sources. The Afded version can also be sourced from articles like this one. There seems to be healthy coverage of it in reliable sources. There also seem to be few historically important sites there. So it can be further expanded & should be kept. BTW, there are zillions of villages/towns in every Indian district, and it's not possible to even list their names in their respective district articles, let alone merging them. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• keep Personally I would like to see villages about which we have nothing beyond a name, location, and census data rolled up into regional lists, but the uniform precedent has been to give them separate articles. Usually deletion requires casting sufficient doubt that the place exists at all, and that's clearly not what we have here. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Passes
  WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized village ([13]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Per
  WP:GEOLAND, the reference sources and content still can expand it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, meets
  "Article content does not determine notability", thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as a recognized populated place, the subject passes
  WP:GEOLAND. Pratyush (talk) 17:46, 13 December 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 Chronicles (Rush album). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles (video)

Chronicles (video) (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)

Apparently non-notable video compilation, unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Chronicles (Rush album), since the two are one and the same, but in a different format. The album article should contain everything about the compilation, including the video releases. Mindmatrix 19:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Mindmatrix. All this really is is a DVD compilation of the songs from that greatest hits album that had music videos to compile for sale on a companion DVD — which means all it really needs is a subsection of the album article rather than its own standalone article, because it isn't really a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessa

Jessa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to pass

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 11:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 11:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 11:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. The article asserts notability strictly via inheritance. The sources are all internet junk (Twitter et al) and the text is entirely OR. Written by a SPA whose only edits were creating and expanding this article...Likely a vanity or "stage mother" page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to reliably assert notability. fish&karate 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable backup singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aglaophotis

Aglaophotis (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 about this fictional plant was PRODded after being unreferenced for ten years. A BEFORE search turned up the OED dicdef as a fictional plant and some blog posts describing its use in several video games. No other independent reliable sources. The article is unlikely to ever grow from the current stub. Text should be merged into an appropriate article and this article converted to a merge. Alone, the topic is trivia and unencyclopedic. Rhadow (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 10:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 10:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Before AFDing an article, it would be most helpful if the nominating editor would carry out some basic checks like a Google book search. Try clicking the word "books" above and one will see many, many references. I'm all in favour of high quality referencing but just because the article has been unreferenced for 10 years is no reason to delete. We would all be better spending our time adding references rather than conducting deletion debates. Finally, to argue that the topic is "trivia" is a statement of opinion while the assertion that that it is "unencyclopedic" is not supported by the fact that many

WP:RS mention the topic. I have added one reference to demonstrate how improvements can readily be made and if the nominator wants to enter into a Wikipedia wager with me whereby I will take the article beyond a stub if he carries out at least 500 appropriate replacements of template "End box" with "s-end" then I will set to work on the article. Greenshed (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Just because an article has not been referenced for 10 years does not mean references don't exist, it simply means that people haven't found that page in order to add references to it. Similarly, that reason also applies for the article being a stub, if people cannot find/search for the article, then it won't be improved because there is no-one to edit it. It is unnecessary to delete the article if there is sufficient material which can be used to improve it. Generally speaking, I wouldn't flag an article for deletion if I have not contributed to it in the past (as that implies that I wouldn't want to bother improving the article), therefore for these reasons, I think the article should be kept. GippoHippo (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Took me 5 minutes to find two more references. I wasn't even really trying. I'm sure the book mentioned could be cited as well.

talk) 17:00, 13 December 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.

Monotronic

Monotronic (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 do not think any of the references are substantial enough to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Although there isn't anything from the NY Times, there are a number of sources of note that, when added together with the other sources, make the band a notable entity. Here's a Thrillcall entry on the band and some of their music.[1] A 2015 Governors Ball, one of the largest music festivals in New York City, entry on the band.^[2] Here is a publishing company, Berghahn Books talking about a book the band leader wrote he cites the experience in the book inspiration for the band. The Google Books link is included as well^[3][4] An American Music and Sound article on the Keyboard player as well as his Nord sponsorship page.^[5][6] A Modern Drummer article and a Zildjian spotlight on their drummer.^[7][8] Evans Drumming talking about the Electronics player.^[9] A Pocket Paz Article on their Bass player.^[10] A Relix Music Magazine feature from April. As well as their feature on the magazine's soundcloud.^[11][12] A V Magazine Summer commercial that uses their music (Down to Earth).^[13] A Jam Buzz Festival Feature.^[14] A Disk Jam festival feature.^[15] And finally, their Google play and Itunes music links.^[16][17] Rocckker13 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of wall-of-text reply doesn't make a strong case. Most of these are just machine-generated discographies or republications of the band's own promotional copy; iTunes does not confer notability! The book the lead singer wrote has nothing to do with the band. The American Music and Sound link looks like it was written by Adam Ahuja himself. Can you point to any articles in reliable sources about the band itself? Pburka (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]