Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 16

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 15 July 17 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CakeMail

CakeMail (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 advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage to meet

WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is passing mentions, directory listings or PR-driven. Google books search produces a short case study (link), but its about the company's use of Twitter, not about the company itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SOFTDELETE
as has been unsuccessfully prodded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:59, 16 July 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

velut luna 09:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Kuti Girls' High School

Kuti Girls' High 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)

As a high school, this should be notable (see

WP:GNG, Ithink we should delete it for now. It has been in a half-finished state for 5 months and has little info, so I don't think it is useful to the reader at present. Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've not been able to find significant sources; could find two incidental mentions. The current article should be deleted; it may be later recreated if something notable turns up. Lourdes 07:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect . The school exists, Redirect it to Kasba Upazila#Education. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:57, 16 July 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Siulapwa

Danny Siulapwa (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 turns up Facebook, youtube, and a host of sites that are not independent from the subject. Non-trivial discussion of the subject in reliable independent secondary sources appears to be lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:57, 16 July 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) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Borthwick (journalist)

Jamie Borthwick (journalist) (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)

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a TV reporter, sourced to his LinkedIn. The article merely lists his jobs, and searches (not helped by there being a TV actor of the same name) are not finding anything better than passing in-role mentions. Fails
    WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as individual fails WP:JOURNALIST. 111.68.107.38 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per AllyD. There isn't anything in the description in the article that sets him apart- no remarkable roles or awards. The only source is a self-published LinkedIn profile and I couldn't see any sources that provide coverage of his activities. Notability has not been established when judged against
    WP:JOURNALIST. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:26, 20 July 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) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gratis

Gratis (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 about a definition. Fails

WP:NOTDICT. - MrX 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom NikolaiHo☎️ 01:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This in not really an encyclopedic topic covered in multiple reliable sources. It is word with definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (as noted by the nom). Steve Quinn (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:33, 17 July 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. SoWhy 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conan (C/C++ package manager)

Conan (C/C++ package manager) (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.Hardly passes

WP:GNG.Mentioned on own-published or non-reliable sources etc. Winged Blades Godric 10:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article has two sentences and three lines. Consensus is to not keep, no consensus about redirect. I.e., anybody can now create (and anybody else can then RfD) a redirect. This does not prevent a competent recreation along the lines of what Derek Andrews suggests.  Sandstein  11:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Chhattisgarh

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

Fails

WP:GNG. The information is verifiable, but the subject does not appear to be notable. - MrX 14:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator: Are you assuming that the stub's content is all there is to be said about the subject? The subject is a minority religion in a state of 28 million people. A quick Google News search brings up concerns of inter-religious violence ([2] [3]), and a cursory search of Google Books offers snippet views suggesting some historic importance. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:SYNTHESIS one would have to commit to make something out of the sources mentioned above, I am not convinced this can go anywhere beyond a mishmash of news snippets. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time. Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:50, 16 July 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. SoWhy 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nogrid points

Nogrid points (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 fail to see any non-promotional covg. in

reliable secondary sources about the software. Winged Blades Godric 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment -- Nogrid pointsblow seems closely tied to this. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All I can find in Google scholar are false positives and a handful of almost-uncited papers by the same people. I don't think it passes the standard of
    WP:GNG that people independent of its developers have written and reliably published nontrivial material about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:48, 16 July 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) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-Four Hours (TV program)

Twenty-Four Hours (TV program) (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)

Sourced only to a dead link, main editor blocked for vandalism. No substantial content contributions by other editors.

talk) 13:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this is a cut and paste move of an article I moved to draft because it had no references and the earlier edits have been left out so on those grounds as well as the lack of references it would be best to delete and if a different editor finds rs they can edit the draft version
WP:AFC process Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:48, 16 July 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note here to clarify that although
WP:BLP on Wikipedia, the article wasn't actually linking to it and thus its existence didn't get noticed by anybody while this discussion was active. Accordingly, once I discovered that it did exist, I recreated the title as a redirect to her — and of course, I would have done that right off the bat if I'd known about her BLP earlier. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Talk Media News

AfDs for this article:
Talk Media News (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)

Although this is technically a second nomination, this isn't eligible for speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content — while this certainly sounds like the same thing as the deleted article, there are conflicting history claims that make it unclear whether or not it really is. (As well, this is a five-year-old article that got moved overtop this title after the first discussion, not a newly-created article.) At any rate, regardless of whether it's the same thing or not, there's no indication being provided here that this meets

reliable sources, but the sources here aren't demonstrating that. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The radio equivalent of a
    chatter) 01:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
We don't keep poorly sourced articles just because expansion could "conceivably" be possible — it would need to be shown that the
self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-assisting source: notability is demonstrated by media outlets other than itself devoting their resources to producing content about it, not by self-publishing its own web presence. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I mainly did that because I couldn't think of anything else to post, as I do not have additional sources right now. I just think maybe we should be a little more careful about deleting an article on a company with a seat in the White House press pool. Scratch that. I see you've redirected the article. Fine by me. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 05:22, 26 July 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) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Guliyeva

Zahra Guliyeva (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 see why she is notable. Additionally, we already have Alkhanly attack which is about the same thing and which has been PRODded as a run-of-the-mill event. May be one line could be added to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or smth like this. Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: tragedy but, as per long established policy,
    notability as has been long established. Quis separabit? 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:37, 23 July 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. Particularly, due to the sourcing added by

velut luna 09:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Win Conference

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

Fails

WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 09:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- business conferences are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. No need for an encyclopedia entry just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Women's International Networking Conference. New sources are OK. Most are passing mentions, but the Gairdian called it "Europe's biggest women's networking conference", and a mention in the New York Times is nothing to scoff at. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:41, 16 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tinko Simov

Tinko Simov (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 topic lacks

ping}} me. czar 05:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of the two sources, only one is not a dead link and I am not sure as to its overall notability. As the nominator said, if the individual had played a major role in Bulgarian politics, you would expect there to be more coverage readily available and included within the article. Would definitely be open to keeping it should new evidence arise demonstrating/proving notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Weak keep - @
    Czar:, @TheSandDoctor:, there is an online version of the one google books hit for the individual. It is a book/pamphlet written by an anarchist, Georges Balkanski, about one of Simov's collaborators, Georges Cheïtanov. It is in french and here is the link[8]. Cheïtanov does not have an article. However, given the number of hits written in Cyrillic (most or all in Bulgarian) for his at google books, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Тинко+Симов", at least some of which are certainly about this Simov, it seems he is probably covered in multiple sources, and probably at times in depth, as with the biography of Cheïtanov. I think he passes NPOV and NOR as well. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We can't keep on probability—what sources have depth and can be used to write an article? Surely not a bunch of mentions. Also why did you use http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html—it has no signs of reliability... Note that our Bulgarian article too has no sources. czar 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be slow to respond. I didn't mean to say, "there must be sources", but rather, look at all of these sources in Bulgarian. I see most of them in snippet view, but it is not too hard to string together snippets to find out if a particular source is in depth. I have just started trying to add sources to the article from google books, and will try to do a bit more tonight or this weekend. If you can read Bulgarian (which I cannot), or have experience, do you know if topwar.ru is a reliable source? It seems somewhere between a high level blog and a news site. Simov's coverage in that source is certainly in depth. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes non-English sources give the impression of depth but have little, which is why it's necessary to read the actual contents to argue that there's enough substance with which to write an article. For example, topwar.ru (Военное обозрение) appears to be more of a blog with a big forum. It doesn't have a presence on ruwp but has been used in some enwp articles, likely without discrimination. The only article they have on Simov (Тинко Симов) is this 2015 section, but its text rips wholesale from bgwp's pre-2015 ... so that and no explicit editorial policy/pedigree for accuracy leaves little trust for reliability. Is there perhaps some separate, larger Bulgarian military history action or topic that might be able to house the information you found? czar 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll keep chipping away at the statements cited to either web-page, sourcing them to books. I've struck weak from my !vote, for what it is worth. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure if the material would be a good fit anywhere else. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- For a Bulgarian subject, we cannot expect to have a lot of English language sources. However, I observe the Bulgarian WP has an article and assume that says much the same as the English one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron, the Bulgarian article was already noted for having no sourcing... czar 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably I do not read Bulgarian, but as there is a Bulgarian WP article, we should follow their lead. If the article is removed from AFD there we should also remove it. Until then we should assume good faith. Even a site pushing a strong POV is not necessarily unreliable, merely suspicious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
its own pace for addressing unsourced articles. The Bulgarian article has no sources, so there is nothing for us to take from it. Good faith is about assuming that others mean well and are trying to help the project, especially as the Internet decontextualizes their actions. It doesn't mean blind faith in assuming that another's work cannot be checked/verified. czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The requirement is that articled should be verifiable, bit that they should be verified by references. If a Bulgarian WP's AFD removed the article, we should follow, but until then, I would prefer to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following your logic here. A "keep" rationale based on appearance in other Wikipedias
is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid for reasons I already explained czar 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • http://ikonomov.a-bg.net is also unreliable and should be removed. (It's used in double refs, and not knowing what exactly the other ref covers, I'd prefer not to leave something unsourced by removing it myself) czar 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a-bg.net, I'm not sure if this site is clearly unreliable. The site is now anarchy.bg and is run by the Federation of Anarchists in Bulgaria (Федерация на Анархистите в България). Clearly the site is POV and should be used carefully and in conjunction with other hopefully more reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? Well it certainly doesn't have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, as our definition of reliability, and if it helps, we certainly wouldn't use a partisan English-language anarchist site as a reliable source for historical information, either. We're not even getting a clear lineage of authorship on a-bg.net... czar 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know its reputation and defer to you, if you are more familiar with it. I think removing the link is disengenuous to our reader, per WP:SWYGI, but I agree that it is good that we now have published oook citations for most (all?) of the material in the article. Regarding your second statement, we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources, I don't know if they are anarchist, and I agree that when used, usually they should be improved. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources

Not for general facts when the partisan sources have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, which is what makes a site reliable and which http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html does not do. (Mind that anarchy.bg is separate/different in organization from ikonomov.a-bg.net.) Since you stacked the refs, I could use your help confirming that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we are talking past each other regarding partisan sources, but before requesting that we put that issue aside, I want to reiterate that I am not particularly interested in the source except in as much as it is the richest source I found on Simov and our readers might be well served if pointed in that direction. In any case, the link to the original source of the article exists in the article history and can be found if someone needs it.
Regarding your other point, I do not know what you mean by "stacked the refs". Perhaps you are referring to the process of adding an abundance of loosely related to the subject references to "save" an article on AfD. If so, I did not mean to do that, I only meant to provide refs for the article from the google books search I linked as you suggested on the 15th. Regarding helping confirm that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs, I am not sure how to do that for snippets. Do you speak Bulgarian? Do you see snippets for the pages I provided when searching for Тинко Симов or a related string? Sometimes it is requested that a quote be added from a reference to establish connection between the reference and the point in the article. Is that what you are requesting? If so, I again want to note that I do not speak Bulgarian and am relying on google translate (and I do not use a Cyrillic keyboard and was forced to rely on a slow process in some cases where directly copy-pasting text was less possible); so while it is perfectly acceptable for you to make such a request, I am not sure how best to respond given the amount of time complying would take. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I meant that if a paragraph reads "Fact A. Fact B.[ref 1][ref 2]" and ref 1 is removed, then either facts A and B should be verifiable in ref 2, or the facts should be removed (so the content matches the sourcing). I thought you'd be familiar with the contents of each source as you added the refs czar 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree that facts should be removed, I'll double check and add {{cn}} to statements for which I haven't found anything other than the a-bg.net article. I propose we leave these statements in at least until the end of the AfD, so that anyone who sees our discussion can see what material will be removed due to questions regarding that source. I'll also remove the verification needed tags where appropriate, if you don't mind. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:35, 20 July 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) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triplex (game)

Triplex (game) (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 no indication that the subject of this article meets

WP:COI by article originator User:Ljtsouthatx. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
E) 23:34, 16 July 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. (

velut luna 09:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Tasty (Good Rats album)

Tasty (Good Rats 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)

Fails

WP:GNG. The only significant source available, online or by other means, is the album's own liner notes. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fine album, and there are some informative, decades-after-the-fact reviews on such sites as rateyourmusic, allmusic, and sputnikmusic, but I must reluctantly agree that it fails GNG, having never received significant coverage in (or by) any reliable, independent sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I really don't understand why I'm able to find sources given a couple of minutes of Googling while other people's exhaustive searches determine that nothing exists, but there are contemporary reviews available online from Billboard, Creem, and Robert Christgau. Given that it's from the mid-70s, further coverage in print sources will almost certainly exist. --Michig (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because most editors do not consider 2-3 sentences (one source is clearly promotional) as significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is 'clearly promotional'? The 509-word article in Creem, where only the first part is visible to non-subscribers to RBP? --Michig (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the band released multiple albums on a major label, it makes sense to have article on all of them. Just because they only have a tracklisting now, doesn't mean they can't be expanded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 24 July 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. Article was a hoax, deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Tuba

The Little Tuba (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)

Doesn't pass

WP:GNG. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per

talk) 23:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Who's Your Daddy? (video game)

Who's Your Daddy? (video game) (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 contains 4 sources, not enough to meet

talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator per
talk) 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've dropped 8 more sources on the article's talk page, from
    WP:VG/RS's reliable custom search. I'm currently neutral on keep or delete, but the nom's rationale is weak. AFD is not cleanup. Having only 4 sources in the article, and whether or not the article has been updated to follow recent changes or updates, are not valid deletion rationales. There's a difference between the article only having four sources in it, and there only BEING four sources in existence. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 16 July 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) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zolzaya Munkhtseren

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

Unreferenced, can't verify the subject even exist - Google Scholar has 0 hits for this name. Hoax, or likely fail at

WP:SPA User:Zolzaya M, who also deprodded it. Prod by User:Largoplazo. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a hoax because I've found one work so far that lists "M. Zolzaya" along with "D. Dashjamts, P. Darikhuu"—though the article has her collaborating with a D. Dashjamts and an R. Darikhuu. She's also listed here as the secretary of the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Largoplazo (talk) 14:35, 17 July 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) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagoranao

Tagoranao (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)

Poorly written article with no sources. Google searches for "Tagoranao Goldiano Macapaar bin Sabbar", "Tagoranao", and "Commander James Bond" mostly turn up information on his brother and copies of this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 16 July 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) 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pave Mover

Pave Mover (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)

Reference is self-linking.

Pave Mover essentially links to a list in article PAVE with no article Student7 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. There was a clear consensus to keep, notwithstanding the thoroughness of the nominaton. (

velut luna 09:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Geeta Bharat Jain

Geeta Bharat Jain (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)

Poorly sourced

routine blurb about her initial election -- and even the one source here that might actually help to add another sentence to the article ("Bombay high court directs Mira-Bhayander mayor to appoint opposition leader") isn't really much longer than a blurb either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write more than just "she exists" and support it with enough sourcing to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but this as written isn't even close to adequate. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Article is very poorly sourced, doesn't pass

let's talk about that 19:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
let's talk about that 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that the inclusion criterion for local politicians explicitly states that the core condition is "who have been the subject of significant press coverage". So the standard that it would have to meet is not that sources would need to be determined not to exist before the article could be deleted — it's that the existence of sufficient sourcing has to be affirmatively shown before the article could be kept. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
let's talk about that 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
let's talk about that 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment
    WP:Primary does not prohibit the use of primary sources). It is unclear from the sources, or the article about the city of Mira-Bhayandar what roles and function the mayor plays in the city. --Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 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) 19:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Regina Public

Campus Regina Public (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)

Advertorially-toned (note the use of the first person we/our) article about a school, with no

neutral content to be sourced to reliable source coverage about the topic in media. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
let's talk about that 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:19, 18 July 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. SoWhy 11:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Hornbill

Fly Hornbill (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)

Doesn't pass

WP:NCORP RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:18, 17 July 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. Uncontested sources trump an assertion of non-notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wiegand

AfDs for this article:
Joe Wiegand (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)

Doesn't seem notable outside of a very narrow domain--article reads like an advertisement or CV. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article just needs to be improved with reliable secondary sources. Most biographies on Wikipedia are niche-related. He has traveled the country playing Roosevelt and has been covered in publications that are considered major in states/cities/regions. Examples: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]....oh and here's a New York Times piece to seal the deal: [21]. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree, The New York Times article on Weigand being chosen to model for a recent statue of Theodore Roosevelt is, itself, quite notable. I've personally seen resulting statue and its remarkable and always crowed with people taking pictures along-side of the likeness. The sculpting studio even flew him up to their studio, picking up the tab for the flights. Consider that the sculptor could have just found someone roughly of the same size as Roosevelt. No, he was looking for more than just a similar sized model. He indicated that in the Times article. Wiegand WAS chosen because he was considered quite notable in the T.R. role. SimonATL 14:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Rather then merely being "featured in newspapers," Wiegand, for example, reprised Theodore Roosevelt at the White House as part of a White House celebration the 150th birthday of Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States on Oct. 27, 2008 in the East Room of the White House before a crowded audience including a sitting President and members of the Roosevelt family. While a Google search of T.R. Impersonators lists no less than six T.R. reprisers, Wiegand was the only on invited to play T.R. Wiegand is simply NOT a non-notable "local celebrity" unknown beyond a small circle. Doing a Google Search, I've noticed that he has reprised T.R. on several documentaries which I located and will update the article. Bottom line, he IS noteworthy and the article just needs to be updated with more recent and reliable secondary sources. As noted above, Wiegand has performed in the White House and all across the Nation. Wiegand continues to crisscross the US reprising Roosevelt and has been covered in major publications. Wikipedia editors have gone round-and-round on this topic and I think some of it represents left-wing political bias against anyone who portrays even a liberal Republican like T.R. in an effective manner. And PERISH the thought that Wiegand could perform in front of the much-maligned George W. Bush.

Note also that the article has been updated to include Wiegand's work in Education, educating students in high schools across the US, educating American military personnel and their families and, more recently, standing in as a model for the American Museum of Natural History (Night at the Museum)'s statue of Theodore Roosevelt that is in its new Roosevelt Center in the basement. "NON-notable" people do NOT have this range of activities nor contributions to educating the (American) public on the 26th (US) President. Let's SETTLE this "NON-NOTABLE" claim once-and-for-all!SimonATL 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Even Stronger Keep - The article has been updated to include Wiegans work in Education, educating students in high schools across the US, educating American military personnel and their families and, more recently, standing in as a model for the American Museum of Natural History (Night at the Museum)'s statue of Theodore Roosevelt that is in its new Roosevelt Center in the basement. "NON-notable" people do NOT have this range of activities nor contributions to educating the (American) public on the 26th (US) President. Let's SETTLE this "NON-NOTABLE" claim once-and-for-all! SimonATL 19:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 08:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a nice article, but isn't notable. A agree per nom, the article concerns a very narrow domain, and being featured in newspapers isn't enough to be featured on Wikipedia.NikolaiHo☎️ 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not true. He passes
    Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. It's not about who thinks what is a niche or what is important or not. Basketball players are a specific niche subject but all professional basketball players have Wikipedia articles and it's primarily because they have merely played one game in a professional league. This man has been featured in numerous publications - and I don't mean merely mentioned. He's even been profiled by the New York Times. Clearly he isn't *that* niche if he also performed at the White House. Missvain (talk) 17:18, 18 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Katz

Eric Katz (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 appears to fail the notability criteria at

WP:NACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong preference. David Eppstein raised the question of the notability of the article. I note that the A-H-K paper was subject of one of the four annual talks in the current events in mathematics series at this year's annual AMS meeting, which puts it in remarkable company-- two surveys of hot fields in the resolution of a famous problem by Tao. I will add this to the article, which already cites the AMS notices survey paper by the same authors. I think the notability of the work itself is not at issue. ( I had heard of it long before from colleagues in algebraic geometry as a major breakthrough, solving a very important problem by very unexpected means that connected to a seemingly unrelated area, and thus likely to result in much future work. so I am personally confident that the strong indications I cited are accurate.) The no "strong preference" vote is because I don't know whether it is usual practice for all three authors on a breakthrough paper to merit an article. I see no harm in it, given that it he made a serious contribution to a major intellectual development, which will save someone the bother of having to re-create the article down the line. 122.167.238.108 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — 122.167.238.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep. I definitely think this isn't as simple as saying Eric fails
    WP:NACADEMIC. With regards to the drop from Associate to Assistant Professor position, well, he already was an Associate Professor, and he will become one soon again. If it is the case that say, any associate math professor in a western country can have a Wikipedia page, then I think he should have one. Ethanbas (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Per WP:NACADEMIC #5 we presume that people who have held the title of "distinguished professor" are notable. Associate vs Assistant professor isn't directly relevant to a discussion about notability, and in any case notability isn't temporary so there is no difference in a notability discussion about whether the position is currently held. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article that seems to have triggered the creation of this page (1) was picked up by Wired and is now featured on its homepage and (2) may have been primarily about a collaborator, but also has a great deal about Katz as well. That's still just a single RS, but that RS is not as trivial as originally presented. Calbaer (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong preference. There should be a quite simple criterion to decide this; if having contributed to an important paper (A-H-K) merits a wikipedia page (and from what I hear, all authors contributed about equally), then it should stay provided we feel A-H-K is important enough as a contribution to science. I would argue that this is the case. If the paper not being published is a problem, I would advocate for a weak delete of the authors pages until it is. If being mentioned in an article about someone else vs. being the focus is the issue, then the page should be deleted according to this standard. However, I do not think an article mentioning someone should be the point of merit in any case, or we get articles about random socialites or crackpot scientists with more public standing than most serious scientists. 87.77.36.17 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) — 87.77.36.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
source discussion
, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the relister's request for more source discussion: all people (not just academics) are
    presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only independent source that has been presented is Quanta. That source is primarily about June Huh, with a brief mention (~1/2 paragraph) about Katz. I do not think this qualifies as "significant coverage" and it certainly isn't multiple sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not to mention the fact that none of the things he is said to have assisted with even have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in nine paragraphs, plus a caption for his photo, far more than "a brief mention (~1/2 paragraph)." Again, I think his coverage within this article is being presented as more trivial than it actually is. Agreed that it's just one independent reliable source, but that source shouldn't be mischaracterized. Moreover, the criteria you present are sufficient for - but not necessary for - notability. (Then again, no one's brought up any sufficient evidence yet, which someone really should in order to justify keep.) Calbaer (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"He is mentioned" is different than "(~1/2 paragraph) about Katz". How many times his name appears in the article is not relevant; whether the article contains significant coverage of Katz is relevant. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the article is about results he co-authored and about both him and his co-authors (albeit focusing primarily on one other than him). Anyone who wants to see the extent of the coverage within the article can read it and judge for themselves. However, I don't want those who haven't read the article to assume it only has "a brief mention" of him based on statements to that effect. Calbaer (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Some links that provide more evidence for notability:
https://uwaterloo.ca/combinatorics-and-optimization/news/adiprasito-huh-and-katz-announce-proof-rotas-log-concavity
http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/meetings/national/jmm2017/2180_invspeakers#bake
https://mattbaker.blog/2014/04/11/effective-chabauty/
https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/updates-and-plans-iii/
https://mattbaker.blog/2015/12/14/hodge-theory-in-combinatorics/
http://www.nieuwarchief.nl/serie5/pdf/naw5-2016-17-1-032.pdf
All the above are mentions of Eric Katz with relation to the result he helped bring. Also found http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201704/rnoti-p380.pdf Ethanbas (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just routine material-self published/blogs/university PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I mean, it's evidence other mathematicians are taking Katz's/etc's work seriously. If you don't want self-published/blogs/university PR, there's always Katz's published papers :) Ethanbas (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that published papers don't establish notability. There are plenty of people who've published many papers in the most prestigious journals but fail to meet notability. So publication record alone is very, very weak evidence of notability. Calbaer (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very significant development in mathematics, combined with at least some detailed coverage, should be enough. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:56, 23 July 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) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shiblee Group of Colleges

Shiblee Group of Colleges (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)

Search produces nothing. Fails

WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 16:02, 16 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachariah Anani

Zachariah Anani (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 person under wikipedia gidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Difficult to find reliable sources (most are religious literature, self-published or user content). —PaleoNeonate - 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try clicking HighBeam on toolbar. And Note that "religious" sources are not inherently non-reliable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still not significant coverage in reliable sources. As for the Christian propaganda blogs I was refering to before, they are not reliable sources (but those may not be the ones you were justifying). I also respect your keep vote. —PaleoNeonate - 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a much larger question is: Is this person sufficiently notable? I see nothing in the article as it is now to establish that he deserves an entry in the Wikipedia. That he has made apparently unsubstantiated claims is not enough. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:45, 19 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Masini

Michael Masini (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)

Actor with minor roles that do not meet

WP:NHOCKEY. Article claims "lead" in a notable television series yet official web page does not include him in cast (shows leads). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:42, 16 July 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. The discussion is unsatisfactory because it confuses the notability of the TV character and of the real soldier, and many of the "keep" opinions don't really address the sourcing issues, but I still can't find a consensus to delete here.  Sandstein  08:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Nixon (United States Army officer)

Lewis Nixon (United States Army officer) (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)

Lewis Nixon was an officer in the

WP:NOTINHERITED. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just got some use out of this article to remind me who was who on Band of Brothers without rewatching the series--places like IMDB don't include biographical information. My life would have been slightly more annoying without this article, so I say keep it. 67.171.230.126 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a teacher this article provided helpful background on a mini-series I show parts of for class. Why is Nix's wiki the only one considered for deletion when he accomplished so much more for easy company than other citations? The relationship between Nixon and Winters is a key in understanding the contributions of Easy Company during World War II. Nixon is noteworthy both in history and pop culture and deserves to be kept. 09:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this page could be redirected to the 506th's article or the Band of Brothers article (or merged into a list of characters from BoB)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources about him, including several books. And portrait in a TV-series. That won't happen when you are a no-no. The Banner talk 16:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's time to review the bidding. "Lewis Nixon," the BoB TV character is a creation of the screenwriters; please don't confuse him with the real man. If there are books about the man Lewis Nixon, please list the titles for our benefit.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:38, 17 July 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. Though there was a general opinion the article in its current state was unsuitable, there was no obvious agreement as to what to do with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hans India

The Hans India (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 see no indication of notability. It exists, but the only references are itself, the content is promotional. Huon (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. It doesn't quite meet G11 for advertising IMO. Another thing to consider is that articles about predominantly non-english speaking countries have a lot of sources that don't show up when you search in english. As is it doesn't meet GNG though. If I saw this in the new pages feed I would draftify it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are self-published, I failed to locate any independent and reliable sources that are significant. - TheMagnificentist 12:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the article about the newspaper article has selfpublished sources but it should be kept the reason is the newspaper is regional (state level based) not national level so it won't have coverage from the reliable sources like

Times of India
may not provide it coverage as they too have newspaper business. This subject is notable but not famous. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:03, 17 July 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 House of Night#Hidden. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden (Cast novel)

Hidden (Cast novel) (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)

Search didn't throw up anything solid enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:34, 17 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baarish (song)

Baarish (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)

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-song reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings(The HT article).The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs but WP:NSONGS says ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created...; which is what is happening here.Redirect asnd/or Merge to film article sought. Winged Blades Godric 17:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 15:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it has got adequate covering through various articles and also on you tube. This being a very famous Indian ( Bollywood ) Song requires to have its own Wikipedia page and must not be considered for deletion. Let us all rather work on its expansion. I also request that this article may be excluded from AfD list and this discussion be concluded. Thanks. Red Pen (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For one, Youtube fails
notability; not assumed popularity(on youtube view/like counts etc.)!Winged Blades Godric 10:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRISP Algorithm

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

Nothing to suggest that this merits an article. Yet another article written by a college student who has failed to find the topic of an an assignment on Wikipedia, imo. TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per
    WP:TNT. Unsourced and nearly content-free. As the nominator suggests, this reads like some student's notes from a lecture, with all the actual content not understood and not written down. The article itself, though, suggests in an unverifiable way that there were another couple of steps in the process: the student posted their notes to a web site in some other language and then someone else with even less understanding translated it (possibly introducing copyvio issues in the process). Even if it could be shown to be a notable topic, this article on it would not have any content worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    talk) 01:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eslövs AI

Eslövs AI (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 criterion. - TheMagnificentist 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this case given they have participated in the highest level of competition there and this is something that is not quite going to qualify for WP:CORP itself, but instead WP:Notability (sports). I'm never one to suggest we accept genuinely unacceptable content at all but this isn't one of those cases. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eslöv is the dominating club in Sweden, having won the Swedish championships almost every year the last decade. I find a wealth of sources in Swedish when I do a quick search. I have added a couple of them to the article. /Julle (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable in Swedish circles. A stretch, but we should keep it considering the new sources that have been added.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 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 as sources, with one exception, are of insufficient caliber to satisfy WP requirements. Decision supported by consensus.--

"talk" 20:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

InvisibleKitchen

InvisibleKitchen (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 meet notability criteria for inclusion. References do not constitute in-depth coverage, nor does a web search turn up enough. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It gets some coverage in reliable sources here; [26] Rrachet (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is only one reliable source, and the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth to demonstrate notability. It's just a cursory guide to food delivery services in HK. Secondly, I find it kind of suspicious that this comment is your first edit. Citobun (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that reference meets the guidelines for establishing notability - it is intellectually independent and published by a reliable source. I disagree that it is a mere "cursory guide to food delivery services" - it is a review of the food and value for money also. But as correctly pointed out, a minimum of two sources is required and none of the other sources meet the criteria. If another source can be found, I'll change my !vote to Keep but for now, it is Delete.
-- HighKing++ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Invisible Kitchen has supported charities including Hong Kong Dog Rescue, Society for Prevention of cruelty to animals, and Hong Kong Adventist Hospital Charity fund raising!" Etc.
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I have reopened the AFD because I mistakenly closed it as no consensus when further discussion might have clarified consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    -- HighKing++ 11:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Promotional articles are a violation of our basic principles of nPOV, and should be removed from the encyclopedia. If they are notable, good editors like Cunard should be writing them from the sources they are expert at finding, not misusuing their energy defending articles that are essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 July 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) 19:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slonim

Anthony Slonim (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)

Just a bloke doing a job or two; coverage due to these rather than the man himself. TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and suggest nominator withdraw. He is notable for what he does... how is this a surprise? The sourcing of this article is not questionable. Numerous in-depth reliable sources, I can practically choose any of the 13 sources of the article to demonstrate this. Meets GNG 10 times over. Qualifies for automatic notability under
    WP:PROF (#1, #6, #7, and #8 for sure, but possibly others as well). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep I concur with user
    WP:GNG has been met to establish subjects notoriety. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - In addition to the sources in the article, Google scholar is showing the subject has authored or co-authored numerous papers in respected journals such as NIH, AMA, etc. Easily passes
    WP:GNG. CBS527Talk 20:53, 21 July 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) 19:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walusimbi Solomon

Walusimbi Solomon (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 athlete. Fails

WP:GNG. High use of peacock language. - TheMagnificentist 14:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 16 July 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. If editors want to redirect the term to one of the Silicon Graphics related articles, that can be done independently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4Sight

4Sight (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 independent RS in the article or online. Unsourced since December 2009.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other than mentions, I found only short news in InfoWorld (22 February 1988, p. 20). What about cheap redirect to IRIX? Pavlor (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Even in the InfoWorld source, 4Sight is only a passing mention that it was a product for the Iris 4D workstation system designed by the company
    that article's notability in fact), so a small component of that system surely shouldn't have its own article. A thorough search on the term turns up evidence of former and current product names, companies, and services unrelated to SGI. There's not enough here for it to even exist as reliable redirect to IRIX in my opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I assume there is coverage of Iris 4D in paper magazines catering its market, but these machines were never so popular (cheap...) to have their own dedicated magazines and nobody bothered to scan niche magazines for online use. It is much easier to find references for small Amiga/Apple/Atari/C64/CP-M/DOS applications than for a powerful and expensive graphics workstation. This is a very serious problem, as many computer history related articles may be simply deleted, because we all are too lazy to look for offline sources. 4Sight looks like clear case, but we should be really careful when considering other similar articles of that era for deletion. Pavlor (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I spent 20 minutes of my time looking for online sources. While offline sources may exist, the
burden to prove their existence ultimately lies on the editor(s) who are either adding, restoring, or protecting content on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If someone can clarify that there was a significant portion of text dedicated to 4Sight within that source, we should definitely take that into consideration. But a one or two sentence description that just states 4Sight exists wouldn't be enough to satisfy
WP:SUSTAINED, a brief burst or two in the news isn't usually enough to demonstrate notability, so that will still be a factor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 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. SoWhy 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson T700

Sony Ericsson T700 (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-notavle mobile phone. Only source is a statistics aggrandiser which does nothing to suggest notability. Only been edited for cleanups during the eight years this article has been on Wikipedia. GR (

Contact me) (See my edits) 13:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 288,000 search results is quite a lot for a phone launched as long ago as 2008. Seems to be a case of
    WP:BEFORE. Samsara 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep lots of news hits. Just because nobody can be bothered to expand the article, doesn't mean somebody could. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 24 July 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. Per longterm practice, a blog entry isn't enough for notability, particularly for something as common as a road.  Sandstein  12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Road (Ontario)

Airport Road (Ontario) (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 about a municipal arterial road, referenced entirely to

trivial bits of history like name changes -- however, our notability standards for roads require them to have noteworthy political, historical or social context before they qualify for standalone articles, but there's nothing resembling that standard present here. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Airport Road is more than just a regular municipal road. It runs through two jurisdictions and functions as an intercity highway; an unusual characteristic that makes it noteworthy. Also, why is a roadgeek blog automatically considered unreliable? The blog is backed up by photos. And even "official" sources can be wrong. --User:Transportfan70
Crossing over a municipal boundary is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability for a street. And
Reliable sources are real media outlets with established editorial standards and chains of accountability, not blogs — and yes, real media can be wrong about stuff on occasion too, but they have records of publishing corrections when they mess up (which bloggers don't), and a journalist for a real media outlet can get fired if they make a big enough mistake (which a blogger can't). Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  13:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom – While the blog's author is a published author, this work is simply an observation he's made about an area in his hometown. The one notable detail about it possibly being one of the longest known streets in the world is a claim or observation only made by him, as far as I can tell. The blog could possibly pass as a reliable source, but generally for an article's notability, you should really have more than one source. Google Maps is not a sufficient complement. Transportfan70, seeing that you spent a lot of time on this, I'd suggest backing up your work should you ever discover that Airport Road has gained additional coverage in reliable sources. If that ever happens, we can revisit the need to have a standalone article on the topic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the article is adequately referenced. As I mentioned earlier, the blog is backed up by photos—and written by a published author, as you stated—and and Google Maps doesn't lie about road lengths. If Google Maps isn't a reliable source, then I don't know what is! Transportfan70 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps keep the article. I added a historical map for reference and deleted information not in photosTransportfan70 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, Google Maps (or any map for that matter) will show you factual data, but it does not support a claim about being the longest, continuous street in the world. A reliable source that tracks such claims (Guinness comes to mind) would be preferred as the main citation of such a claim. They've performed the research to verify that there isn't a longer one out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article or the blog mention that Airport Rd. is the longest street in the world? The blog mentioning it was a possible candidate only.Transportfan70 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there any
original research here, but that doesn't mean citing a blogger's unverified original research is somehow OK just because it's not coming from us. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:50, 23 July 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 in one way or another. Even the nominator admits that their problem is only with this as a "stand-alone" article, not in general. AFD is not for merge discussions though. SoWhy 11:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkerer

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 fictional character article has no

talk) 13:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Notability must be real-world notability, not fictional notability. Sources verifying notability must be something other than other Marvel media.
    talk) 07:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There have been no arguments or solid evidence in favour of keep. My suggestion of merge is that, a suggestion that the content of the article could be used elsewhere. Content of article only needs to be verifiable, not GNG notable like a standalone article.
    talk) 17:58, 22 July 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 Anne Lister.  Sandstein  13:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Walker (died 1854)

Ann Walker (died 1854) (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 on a well-off 17th century woman who was

talk) 12:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I contest the deletion given the article has been already included in the BIO project, and moreover it met the Notability (people) criteria given that Ann Walker has a primary role in Anne Lister's diaries, which are the basis for LGBT History in the XIX century (People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.)--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reviewing more of this editor's work, and found several similar articles that should be merged per
WP:NOTINHERITED issues, as well as few copyvios. I haven't gotten nearly all the way though, so others might want to take a look. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:46, 18 July 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. As redundant to List of military occupations.  Sandstein  08:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of annexations since World War II

AfDs for this article:
List of annexations since World War II (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 has been a list embedded in the article

List of annexations" to "List of annexations since World War II
", but it has nothing directly to do with the World War II. The list is to do with changes in International Law following World War II.

If the list is from World War II, then it would include several more annexations, and this leads into difficult territory and a POV minefield of OR and opinions. This is because before the change in International law annexation was really common. If the list is not to include definitions of why it exists then any annexation from any period could be included. This leads to fun. For example did France annex Alsace at the end of the war (take you pick as to which one) or reclaim territory rightfully hers?

So this list should be deleted because the list in the original article as examples after 1949 and the change of international. It is not a definitive list, this allows wriggle room that a definitive list does not. Without the explanation embedded the article Annexation of why this list is so restrictive it will be expanded and will not fulfil a useful function, and if the explanation is included then why have two articles? And the article name Annexation meets the bullet points for an article much better that "List of ..." -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @PBS:, 48 hours ago this article had its name changed without discussion: [28]. From its creation until just then, it has been called List of annexations.
A list of annexations is useful to readers. It fits elegantly against List of military occupations, where the tables include a column as to whether the territories were subsequently annexed or not. Some annexations take place without a prior military occupation.
Also the "not a definitive list" comment applies to a huge number of other lists in Wikipedia, including related lists such as List of military occupations, List of territorial disputes, List of border conflicts and List of invasions.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping something. List of annexations without a definition will inevitably lead to the list expanding (as is implied with the name change). If there is to be a explanation for the list then the list of 14 items may as well be included in the articleAnnexation
The total size with the 14 examples is on only 28k with the list sized as about 16k, so the article is not too large and the list size of 16k does not dominate the dominate the article to its determinant.
Your use of a column for annexation in "List of military occupations" is a classic example of really bad additions to a "list of". You have not sourced one example--how are you going to source the entries of "no annexation"? Just because you have not found a source, it does not mean that no annexation took place, because an absences of a reliable source for a fact does not mean that a fact is reliably sourced. There is no time limit on you binary option so for example East Timor is "annexed"? Whether territory is annexed or not is often disputed so a simple "yes" implying a binary truth is less than helpful. Usually it takes a paragraph to briefly explain the dispute (as is done in the Annexation article), because otherwise it leads misleading information: is Alsace currently annexed? -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This post suggests a few misunderstandings. It would have been much better if you had begun a good faith discussion at the thread I opened at Talk:Annexation so would could have worked through misunderstandings these first. Here you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and I foresee this conversation is going to become convoluted very quickly.
Anyway, to respond to your points.
Before we get to the misunderstandings, your proposal needs to be broken down into two: (a), is the structured tabular format better than the random list?, and (b), is this list better in or out of the annexation article? On a., it is objecively clear to me that the table is better - on that I feel strongly. On b., I do not really mind (I doubt anyone does), but I like the elegance of having a separate list given the existence of all the other similar list topics I noted above.
As to the rest of your post, whether a territory is technically "occupied" or "annexed" is usually easy to source, and usually very clear. The piece that is frequently disputed is whether such annexation is "legal" or "recognized". Think Crimea or Tibet - we describe these as annexations on their respective articles, because they were annexations, not because we are taking a view either way as to whether they were legally recognized. As to your examples, East Timor is an independent country, and the phrase "currently annexed" for Alsace is a highly unusual description (I believe technically Germany "ceded" it to France in the last transfer).
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Given the small size of the source article, a
    WP:SPLIT is not useful. Also, formatting as a table is less legible than the clearly labeled examples with section headers. Wikipedia style usually prefers prose. — JFG talk 10:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom (February 2014) closer recommended incorporating the list back into Progrom article where it has remained. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- because List of military occupations does the job better. However, I would have preferred the split in that article to be c.1945, rather than 1960. I say c.1946, because the victorious powers did not immediately provide a national government. "Occupation" needs to be defined as taking complete governmental control. In the communist republics of the Eastern Europe, there continued to be a Soviet garrison and the rulers were to some degree under Soviet tutelage, but they were sovereign states rather earlier than the dates in the list. Conversely the Baltic Republics were annexed by USSR until 1991. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 19 July 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 Glenhaven, New South Wales#Services. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenhaven Rural Fire Brigade

Glenhaven Rural Fire Brigade (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 very small unreferenced volunteer organisation. I PRODed it in the hope that some references would be forthcoming - fire fighting in Australia is often documented by reports in State or National press but I can find nothing to convey any notability. The Prod was removed by the original author. Such organisations have no inherent notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   12:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ORG. Unreferenced small volunteer group. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fails GNG. I have used the single reliable secondary source I could find to add a couple of sentences to Glenhaven, New South Wales, which completely absorbs this article. I recommend redirect (to Glenhaven, New South Wales#Services) rather than delete because, as I think the author has also said somewhere else, these units do have a very special place in local communities and hence it is a likely search term. Aoziwe (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, either as suggested by Aoziwe above, or to New South Wales Rural Fire Service, of which this brigade is a part. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. I wouldn't have nominated it if I'd realized the composer was the WWII aviator. I'll leave it to others to decide if the page should be moved to a new title or not. (

talk) 14:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Robert Bruce (Scottish composer)

Robert Bruce (Scottish composer) (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)

Deprodded by article creator, I can't find anything at this particular Robert Bruce, who seems to clearly fail

talk) 12:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I contest deletion due to the fact the article is included in three wikiproject: WikiProject Biography WikiProject Composers WikiProject Classical music. I created the article but other with more knowledge can help improving it.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. No offence, but that's a ludicrous explanation. Adding a wikiproject banner to a talk page is in no way, shape or form an attestation of notability.
talk) 12:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The Guardian article is an appreciation by a relative (labelled "Other Lives", their heading for notices of people who don't merit an obituary by staff writers) and therefore not a
reliable source. The Telegraph obit is a better demonstration of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 16 July 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. As an exercise in self-promotion for a non-notable film.  Sandstein  08:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot

Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot (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 C movie with references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - fails
    WP:NMOVIE. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - meets
    WP:NMOVIE. First, to avoid any possible confusion, let me state unequivocally that I am the author of article subject to deletion and that I am also the writer, producer and director of the film. This should be apparent in the comments that follow, but if not, it should be clear now. If anyone wants to object for that reason, I will make appropriate revisions to this comment. Now, since an issue of notability has been raised, I added a feature article from The Akron Beacon Journal, which is Akron, Ohio's major newspaper. Akron, Ohio, is a major city and cultural center in the United States, and has given the world may great actors, film directors and musicians. See wikipedia entry: List of people from Akron, Ohio. Moreover, it screened at Nightlight Cinema, Akron’s premiere art cinema house, and is scheduled to screen at Cleveland Comic Con, Cleveland, Ohio in October. Beyond that, however, the film is represented on both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, and appropriate links were given to each. Both are encyclopedic sources for information on films created worldwide. Six other links (not including The Beacon Journal, above) were posted in the original article, all from non-related film critics from the United States and Canada over whom I have no authority or control. Following the link to each of those sources will show sustained and ongoing engagement in the business of film reviewing, and not a one-off review for this particular film. Blogs and websites, particularly in the area of pop culture and film, are now part of the media culture we live in, and shouldn’t be dismissed as niche when they show an serious and continuous pursuit of the topic to which they are devoted. The suggestion has been made, however, that the film could be moved to Help:Userspace draft or retrieved under Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Both actions create their own issues and a better course of action may be possible, as in the following example. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, two links that lead tho the Wayback Machine (webarchive) with less than perfect results, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, a fine and notable film, but to suggest that that film has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the later addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Salander44 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With the exception of the Beacon Journal, all of the reviewers appear to be blogs and blogs are implicitly
    non-reliable IMDb has been rejected as a reliable source because it's user maintained and virtually unedited. Rotten Tomatoes does have a listing, but the "tomatometer" is unavailable (although it's available for other works); I think this means that no reviewer recognized by the site has reviewed the film; there are also no viewer comments. The movie is shorter than the average TV episode.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and improve. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, but to suggest that it has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Keep and improve. Very, very sorry. I forgot to sign this comment. I've added my signature now. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, but to suggest that it has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Salander44 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry User:Salander44... while you may certainly make what arguments you wish, only one "keep" per editor. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now Userfy. As it is beginning to get some coverage and review outside of blogs, but not enough yet in
    return once it gets more non-blog coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If this were to be deleted without a "userfy" or "draftify" suggestion, you could create a new draft using the
    Deletion Review for authorization to move back to mainspace. Or an AFC reviewer could authorize that, if clearly informed of this discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Remove superfluous comments. Thank you for your advice and help, User:MichaelQSchmidt. Would it be possible to remove the paragraphs which have the "strikethrough"? I was not aware of the single "Keep" post policy, and moved the content to my main comment. The strikethrough comments are now superfluous. I would remove them myself, but want to avoid compounding my errors. If you or another user would not be comfortable making that deletion (of the "strikethrough" comments), could you authorize me to do so? This comment could be removed in the process, since it too, would be superfluous. Removing the comments would result in a much cleaner Deletion page. Salander44 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Salander44 Comments once made should not be removed, and once replied to or a later comment has been made should not be edited except to corect typos and invalid markup and the like, or to strike through content. The original strike through could have been done on just the 'keep" not the rest, but it has been done now and further editing would not be helpful. There is no need for "a clean page" as long as people's commetns are clear. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if the decision here is to userfy then the closer could and should simply move the article to user space, and place {{
    draftspace instead. In that case {{subst:AFC draft| <username>}} should be used. I'll want to check the sources myself before giving my own view. Note that more sources, if available, can be added while this discussion is in progress. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yup, and if deleted, I can move the content to a work-space for you at
    its return. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. From what I can determine thus far, the standards in use by wikipedia made a lot of sense in 1967 — 50 years ago — when I was a college senior. We had a library with adequate resources, and the printed book and journal were the measures of “notability” on any subject from chemistry (my first major) to economics (I changed course) to political science (my final major, which led me to Law School and a J.D. in 1970). But this is 2017, not 1967. Can notability be measured solely by inclusion in printed journals, or newspapers which struggle to survive? Can’t it also be found in the blogs and websites of people who dedicate themselves to the task of critical comment on every variety of issue? Whether or not my article is deleted, what I find interesting is a demeaning of the people who take time to write and comment in blogs and websites, the 21st century equivalent of the printing press, but are met with derisive remarks like: “…references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs.” The reviews were not local, save one. Nor is horror niche, although some may want to wish it so. And blogs, as blogs, should not be cavalierly dismissed. It may still be a sore point for some, but the colonies are now a free country because of “ignorant” pamphleteers, the 1776 equivalent to today’s bloggers. See, for example: “American Revolution’s Pamphleteers, Today’s Bloggers and Twitterers for Change.”
    Encyclopedia Britannica, but are they the ONLY appropriate measure on wikipedia? Shouldn’t the fact of notability determine? Salander44 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ https://www.fastcompany.com/1306652/american-revolutions-pamphleteers-todays-bloggers-and-twitterers-change
  2. ^ http://www.cell.com
  3. ^ http://www.nature.com
  • I think you have misunderstood,
    Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]


  • Delete from Mainspace. Userfy or Draftify it. From start to finish, the whole effort (the movie and the Wikipedia article) is a pure vanity project. That's ok for a movie, but not an article in this online encyclopedia. The article does not meet the General Notability or Film Notability guidelines.
Examples of writing in the article that are promotional in tone and unreferenced include:
"It has developed a cult following in Akron and Cleveland, Ohio." [says who? unreferenced]
"...mocumentary [sic] from first-time Director Logan Fry. [2nd mention of his name in consecutive sections] This Triple-B movie (Blood, Boobs and Beast) is definitely not for the kids; but it is seen as becoming a cult classic dues [sic] to its humor and production values." [purely promotional unreferenced verbiage].
"The producers refer to it as 'a movie made for the not-so-sane, and the unabashedly adolescent. And definitely for those who love boobs.'" [Lacking substantive reviews as explained in the Guideline
WP:NFO#Other_evidence_of_notability
: "1.The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics," the article is padded with the flack-style text quoted here.
"But is the shaggy monster really Bigfoot, or just some devious psychopath in a gorilla suit?" [More press kit writing by the screenwriter-producer-director-Wikipedia author]
DonFB (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Speaking directly to a previous comment:
From start to finish, the whole effort (the movie and the Wikipedia article) is a pure vanity project. That's ok for a movie, but not an article in this online encyclopedia. The article does not meet the General Notability or Film Notability guidelines.
Notability is the real issue here, but to suggest that a vast body of films are not, at least in part, “vanity projects” is to live a life in blinders. We all know that filmmakers are a modest and self-effacing lot.
"It has developed a cult following in Akron and Cleveland, Ohio." [says who? unreferenced]
References to “cult classic” can be removed until substantiated in print or online.
"...mocumentary [sic] from first-time Director Logan Fry. [2nd mention of his name in consecutive sections] This Triple-B movie (Blood, Boobs and Beast) is definitely not for the kids; but it is seen as becoming a cult classic dues [sic] to its humor and production values." [purely promotional unreferenced verbiage].
“[M]ocumentary” is a recognized alternate spelling (see Wiktionary) [1] but can be easily changed to meet individual editorial preferences. The “dues” misspelling was an auto-spellcheck error and easily fixed. I believe that the second mention “of Director Logan Fry” was the result of a wikipedia editor change, since it was not in the original article in that form. Because of early issues relating to promotion, I had already removed other references which might be deemed promotional. To my credit, I did not seek to add a profile portrait. See, for example: The Sound of Music (film) and Titanic (1997 film). The phrase “This Triple-B movie (Blood, Boobs and Beast) is definitely not for the kids” can be changed in favor of language that appears in the film itself: “Trigger Warning! Grizzlehead is a Triple-B Film ‘Blood, Boobs and Beast’ - Not Intended for any Audience Easily Offended by Blood, Boobs and Girls Without Heads.” See trailer for alternate title of the film. [2]
"The producers refer to it as 'a movie made for the not-so-sane, and the unabashedly adolescent. And definitely for those who love boobs.'" [Lacking substantive reviews as explained in the Guideline
WP:NFO#Other_evidence_of_notability
: "1.The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics," the article is padded with the flack-style text quoted here.
Wikipedia has articles for Mondo Trasho and Nightbeast, and a cursory review of the films referenced in List of cult films would yield many better examples of bad films, and probably more than a few questionable articles. Wikipedia also continues to maintain an incomplete article for Schlock (film) whose only references that I can see is IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Youtube, and doesn't even rise to the level of referencing a single blogger. Wikipedia also continues to maintain articles for films that have received solely local reviews, many now leading to dead links, and nothing more recent that 2102-13 Made in Cleveland. Poorly-made, tasteless movies, and articles nearly as flaky as the movies they document, are not outside the pale of wikipedia, nor are films that have received only fleeting local attention four and five years ago.
"But is the shaggy monster really Bigfoot, or just some devious psychopath in a gorilla suit?" [More press kit writing by the screenwriter-producer-director-Wikipedia author]
Positive suggestions for improvement would go much further than flame wars which are a waste of time for everyone. I do take the the film seriously, but in case anyone misses the point, the article is about a film that is gross, tasteless, sophomoric, adolescent and yes, even flaky. It does have an audience, but it is definitely not a film in the same league as
Sound of Music or Titanic (1997 film). That doesn’t preclude notability. Salander44 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment. Aha! I found the missing reference to much of the breezy, "unreferenced" language that some have found objectionable. Go to: "Rotten Tomatoes"
    User:NZ Footballs Conscience's comment seriously. Referencing other movies included on Wikipedia doesn't help this article's case, but it does call into question the objectivity and uniform application of standards of Wikipedia editors. The last thing in the world I would ever want is to have Schlock (film) or Made in Cleveland removed. I do not want to be the editor who roams the bowels of Wikipedia to find articles for deletion. Regardless of the fate of this article, and whether it's "Keep and Improve" or "Delete and Userfy", what I truly object to is ad hominem and personal attack in the nomination and a few of the comments. I know for a fact that some despise the film because of its title "Gimme Head" (about a monster who decapitates his victims), boobs and girls stumbling around without heads. I've lost friends for that last travesty. And, oh, actors who break the fourth wall and grin at the camera. But it could be worse. I am currently (when I can break free from this discussion) working on my next film: "Ro-Boob: The Farting Robot Monster," a send up to Robot Monster (1953) -- but with boobs... So let's "Keep and Improve" or "Delete and Userfy", but let's also skip the personal attacks and demeaning attitude. It does not fit anyone well. Salander44 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Salander44 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes, I know the that the writer/director/producer wrote the piece to thank his cast and promote his own work. He's been slapped around enough. I'll volunteer to cut the cast to the first four, reduce the number of review extracts to two, one good one bad, and edit the infobox. Rhadow (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking the necessary coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks the notability necessary for article status, and was penned with serious COI issues. Some of these have been suitably addressed, but I can't shake the fact that this "film" is not worthy of an article, despite the creator's efforts. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Orangemike added the tag: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" to the top of the article's page. I think I've been absolutely transparent. In fact, I added a line to the article that I was the author of the article, but another editor reverted it out. Check the history. It's there. So let me be absolutely clear, not only does "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject," but that very same "major contributor" was the writer, producer, director, cinematographer, location manager, production designer, art department, sound department and a few more that I forget, but I also had more than 30 dedicated people helping me [4]. I don't know why User:Orangemike didn't come out of hiding and post his objections here, but this is your chance, Mike. But if you're an editor willing to lend a helping hand. I'm asking. I'll even ask to visit the next time I visit family in Milwaukee. And for everyone, have the courage to look at this Wikipedia entry for Beautiful Ohio (film), and tell me here what references it has beyond IMDb to support notability. I know it's notable because of its director and cast, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements, and this is what we're here arguing about. So Userfy it. I'll get the notability you need. Salander44 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Just for your reference
    (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thank you,
    WP:CONFLICT. Clearly it's not prohibited, but there were other measures that I could have followed more carefully. I did try to declare my COI by adding that I was the author of the article, but that wasn't correct, either. I had thought that "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia with the aim to allow anyone to edit articles." Wikipedia. I misunderstood. Salander44 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. So I hacked the article enough that it's no longer User:salander44's work. It took me two tries, sorry. If someone else wants to edit some more, have at it. I notice that more ink was spilled complaining about this article (look above) than the twenty minutes it took to fix it. It is no longer an orphan. It is no longer an ode to Logan Fry. Whether it's notable -- go ahead and vote. Your choice. Rhadow (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. At least one other Wikipedian made major edits to the subject article, for which I am grateful, and I'm grateful for yours as well. Just as many have helped me here, I will do my best to edit at least a few articles in the outré sci-fi, comedy-horror and schlock film categories, Schlock (film) being the first (thanks to Cordless Larry (talk) for his guidance and supervision). While John Waters, Ed Wood, Jr., Don Dohler and their ilk may be anathema to some, they bring inexplicable enjoyment to others. And it's the people who attempt to do what they have no training to do, have no right to do, and face failure more often than success, that we owe the advancement of culture. Salander44 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not altogether sure what a "7-day discussion" is, but I am requesting a decision from three Master Editors who have taken an interest in this discussion. I am hoping that they can reach consensus before anyone else goes for a straight Delete. See: Talk:Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot. Salander44 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The existence of this article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies against promotionism. It was created by a person who needs to study up on Wikipedia and what it is before they edit again. Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice to creating a properly sourced article about the book, if indeed it meets the appropriate

notability criteria. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Helena Lewis

Helena Lewis (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)

Biography of a writer, which is really more of a

WP:NAUTHOR. There's simply not enough referencing, or enough actual substance, present here. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find much information on Lewis. However, I have referenced her book on other pages that I have edited and so I wanted to create a link to her. I feel that her book, Dada Turns Red, is an extremely important book in the history of Surrealism. Even if she has only a very small bio, I feel she merits inclusion here. Rather than trying to get this entry deleted, I would hope that you could find more online references to her than I did.Fluffysingler (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is important enough and can be
not inherited. So if the book is important enough, then the book is the thing we should maintain an article about, but that doesn't require us to maintain a poorly sourced standalone biography of the author separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:45, 16 July 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) 19:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT Media City

IT Media City (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

WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After eight days, there has been no discussion at all, and a Reflist to generate any discussion is preferable to a supervote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
velut luna 09:39, 16 July 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) 19:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3kliksphilip

3kliksphilip (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 didn't find any in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, fails

WP:GNG. Recreated page that was speedy deleted in July 2016. Rentier (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:06, 16 July 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

WP:NSONGS does not apply when a song has only been nominated for a notable award. Other reasons for notability were not presented, so redirecting to the film's article is the correct outcome. SoWhy 14:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Breakup Song (Indian song)

The Breakup Song (Indian 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)

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-song reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.

WP:RS.Redirect and/or merge to film article sought. Winged Blades Godric 17:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONGS states--Has won one or more significant awards or honors.Winged Blades Godric 06:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 07:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most likely with the redirect to the film being the most sensible outcome as well. While the song was nominated for a Filmfare award, it didn't win per the article on the relevant award ceremony and doesn't meet any of the other criteria relevant. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lari tribe

Lari tribe (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 no claim to

unreferenced for over a decade. -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 20:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I failed to verify and there are no reliable sources independent of the subject. Greenbörg (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greenbörg, so you did find sources, but they weren't independent of the subject? – Uanfala 17:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only sources which write about Lari dialect of Singhi, spoken by Baloch people, but no mention of tribe.
    talk) 19:26, 18 July 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

Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Lost in Oz

Lost in Oz (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 failed television pilot; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing

Wikipedical (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    The Wizard of Oz (adaptations). Artw (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:TVSHOW, and this one has definitely not received enough coverage to qualify as an exception. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 18 July 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 Fairbank Lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbank Island (Fairbank Lake)

Fairbank Island (Fairbank Lake) (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 about a small and non-notable lake island, whose only source is

reliably source about it for an article to become warranted. To be clear, I grew up near this very lake, so this is not lack of familiarity with the topic — there's simply nothing encyclopedically noteworthy to be said about it besides "it exists". Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fairbank Lake. There is not much content and neither is there any information available about this island. It will be hard to write a full article about it. I have expanded the Fairbank Lake article a bit and mentioned a list of islands there. So redirecting this article seems appropriate.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fairbank Lake where it is not mentioned per above comment. MB 19:50, 20 July 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians Of Termina

Guardians Of Termina (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 independent references to attest to notability of web site either in article or on Google search. Article is

promotional for web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 16 July 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) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanify

Cleanify (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 with sources that appear to fail

talk, contribs) 05:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on an intermediation company, describing its founders and funding. A CSD G11 was removed by the article creator. That said, I doubt it would have succeeded as the article content was reporting the start-up funding without promotional tone. I am seeing nothing, either in the article text or in my searches, to suggest more than a
    WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails
    -- HighKing++ 11:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources provided went mostly uncontested - a slapdash "media citations are not sufficient" isn't enough to negate them and the !vote "leaning" towards delete is qualifying their vote as they don't appear to be certain about whether the sources are sufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Goldstein

Seth Goldstein (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)

Typical promotional spam.PR sources. Winged Blades Godric 11:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

interviews are typically bad sources.Winged Blades Godric 13:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Q&As are generally not good sources because they're not independent. None of the links below are Q&As; they are mainly editorial. JSFarman (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the article for tone, and I'm reformatting my comment again for clarity. None of the following are PR sources: Forbes[31], Inc : [32],Wall Street Journal [33] Wall Street Journal again: [34] CNN: [35], Business 2.0 (via CNN):[36], Forbes again: [37] Billboard: [38], CNET: [39] The New York Times [40]. JSFarman (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Goldstein is a significant figure in the history of internet advertising, and has more than enough reliable secondary source coverage to establish notability. ThePortaller (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I've reformatted my response above to make it less difficult. Also see my note to you on my talk page. JSFarman (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any case for notability; the media citations are not sufficient. There's a case that he is likely wealthy, but that's different from notability.
    talk) 00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes general notability guidelines -
    WP:GNG - multiple reliable sources covering him extensively. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per

WP:SK#1. No valid reason for deletion was offered. Writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but not forbidden (regardless of whether this is one or not). Other reasons for deletion were not mentioned by either the nominator or other users. SoWhy 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Vladimir J. Konečni

AfDs for this article:
Vladimir J. Konečni (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 written all at once by a user named 'Goldenratiocination', who seems to be Dr. Konečni himself. Since it's against Wiki policy to write your own biography, I propose that this page should be deleted. My evidence for this is that the person in question has extensively studied the golden ratio (making the author's username quite a coincidence), and the article seems overly detailed and laudatory. It seems unlikely to me that anyone other than Dr. Konečni himself would have written it, especially in one go. In addition, the page currently appears to cite every article ever written by Dr. Konečni, which is not standard practice. I suggest that a moderator check the IP address of 'Goldenratiocination'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.249.130 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "it's against Wiki policy to write your own biography". Is it? All I could find is this, which just suggests to think about it first. What matters at AfD is whether the subject is notable or not. The issue of notability is not even addressed in the nomination. While the article in its current state appears indeed promotional, this is no reason to delete. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to look at WP:Autobiography. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hereby state that the claims that “GoldenRatiocination” is my account, and that the Wikipedia entry “Vladimir J. Konečni” was written by me, are false. Signed: Vladimir J. Konečni — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.J.Konecni (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the creator of the original article. Since my work has resulted in unjust accusations being made against the subject of the article, I feel I have a responsibility to join this discussion, and offer some clarifications. First, GoldenRatiocination is not, and has never been, Vladimir Konečni's account; he did not write the article. If anyone is curious about the actual origins of the article, I created it during a break from University studies. I based the main content on a research project regarding Konečni's work, rounded out with some additional biographical information. GoldenRatiocination (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Thank you, GRcn, for taking the time to write an extensive article. It must have taken a lot of work, and appreciate that you have heavily referenced it. It would be a significantly better article if if went into less detail, and yet discussed more explicitly Prof. Konečni's impact and the relevance of his work, and real less like a CV and less promotional. Hopefully, that will be taken care of with time in your and others' editorial contributions. In the meanwhile, taking at face value all the data in the article, the Guggenheim fellowship and Emeritus professorship at UCSD together push me over the edge to say Prof. Konečni does seem to meet WP:PROF, therefore keep.
    Martinp (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Nomination withdrawn)

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hosaramanahalli

Hosaramanahalli (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)

Should meet

WP:NPLACE but I couldn't verify anything here. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  15:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. This does appear to be a cohesive population center [41] with businesses in the town's official address being in Hosaramanahalli. However this article suffers from the typical translation issues and is currently un-readable. I'll work on some corrections. --Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching on Googlemaps does find a village of this name in Mysore, Karnataka. So it does seem to exist. MB 20:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom per above. Boleyn (talk) 05:10, 21 July 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. SoWhy 12:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chennaiyil oru naal 2

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

promo The Banner talk 19:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
: alts:
WP:INDAFD: Chennaiyil oru naal 2 Chennaiyil oru naal 2 Ram Mohan Rajesh Kumar A day in Coimbatore film
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@The Banner: might you wish to assist? Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just keep a close eye on it, to see if you and others are able to get a neutral, well sourced article out of it. So far, the effort failed on that point. The Banner talk 09:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated the article as "promo" and it still is promo. It is not a neutral article. The Banner talk 08:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An issue with perceived tone would be a matter for correction
    WP:UGLY. Thanks though for your thoughts. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have also seen quite a number of articles where you claimed that normal editing could solve the advertising but where you did nothing at all. The Banner talk 09:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just one person and even with nearly 70,000 edits I cannot edit everything. I imagine it may be easier to
    sit in judgement and expect/demand others to do the work. No? Yes? Thanks though for allowing me to point out that I as an Admin I still try to be a working and contributing editor. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Wow. An unfortunate mis-statement, when in my ignoring
    WP:IMPROVE both I and Northamerica1000 have been positively addressing issues. I accept the unstated apology. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone at this time (link), in my opinion. North America1000 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut out some and removed a citation... yet you decided to keep a sourced neutral article at AFD as "promo"? Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I nominated was neither sourced nor neutral. But I wanted to give you a change to improve the article by adding more sourced content. The Banner talk 09:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So
    WP:NOEFFORT equals deletion? Nope. Policy and guideline instruct differently, thanks.Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:29, 17 July 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) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPSC South African Handgun Championship

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

Fails

WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable sources about this event.. - MrX 02:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Sounds: A Listener's Guide to New Music

New Sounds: A Listener's Guide to New Music (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 book is listed by libraries but has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Google scholar shows only 43 citations, and it is a reference in some other books (see Google Books). Fails

WP:MUSIC. Although the author is probably notable, this book is not. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:09, 16 July 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. A redirect can be accomplished by regular editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chippewa Island

Chippewa Island (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 in the article is adequately explained in the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, there is no need for another article that also fails to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself. Also a stub. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation 33A The Verified Cactus 100% 20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:XY problem because the reserve was shared by multiple distinct First Nations groups, then there would be a case for separate articles — but neither of those situations applies here. If all we can really write or source is a boilerplate statement that the reserve exists, then it should simply be addressed as part of the nation article instead of standing alone as a separate permastub. By the same token, we don't maintain separate articles about Toronto as a geographic entity and "Torontonians" as a cultural one; we address both aspects in tandem in the same article. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep, even as a permastub. It is a distinct geographic entity, delineated by INAC, and separate from the municipalities and even the province surrounding it. I created this, and many other reserve stubs, in an effort to address Wiki's lack of indigenous content. It invites others to add content specific to the reserve. Also, Chippewa Island is a shared reserve, b/w Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama and Beausoleil. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:52, 23 July 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) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twig (social networking)

Twig (social networking) (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 seem notable. Even when I Google [twig social network], most of the top 10 are not the right company.

This is probably partly because it is defunct, but if it were notable, there should still be significant historical references.

There are also no references cited. Mattflaschen - Talk 01:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 03:12, 16 July 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. Notability appears to be demonstrated; a merger can be discussed in the merge discussion that is currently open and linked from the article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Brewery New York

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

Declined prod. Google shows many mentions of the completely unrelated Lion Brewery, Inc. in Pennsylvania or other Lion Breweries around the world. This company, on the other hand, seems to be discussed in only a single source on a personal webpage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article does not make a credible claim of significance; subject is discussed only on a dead personal website about cans. Delete. ThePortaller (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources have been added to the article, and I also added a claim of significance to the article, as it was the sixth-largest brewery in the U.S. in 1895 (diff). North America1000 02:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking back in on the discussion. Much appreciated. North America1000 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to List of breweries in New York § Closed breweries. – It definitely existed. Finding sources for this is a bit tough, per the timeframe of the brewery's existence. Below are some I found using custom searches, although they do not appear to provide significant coverage. It is likely that additional offline sources are available. It is an historically significant brewery in part per being the sixth-largest brewery in the United States in 1895 (source). Merging will improve the list article, making it more historically comprehensive. North America1000 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough for an article even now. The last of the refs above is Bernsheimer v. Schmidt, the 2 partners, which contains a densely printed 4 p. description of the history of the firm. Thee is also
  • Brewers Journal, v. 41, p. 191 (1912) a significant obit of one of the partners. [42]
  • Jonathan D. Sarna, The American Jewish Experience - Page 56 [43] DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b. I revised my !vote above from "merge" to "keep or merge" (diff). North America1000 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I looked here a couple of days back I felt the brewery must be notable on account of its 19th-century size and location and it was merely that no one had gone back to look at old newspapers and books. So, even then, I was very tempted to !vote keep. Now NorthAmerica and DGG have found references I can even cite
    WP:GNG in support. Thank you. We should (obviously) be retaining such information but it's less important how it is distributed within and between articles. According to the talk page, in 2006 the text was included in Manhattan Valley until someone spun it out into the present article. Thincat (talk) 18:21, 20 July 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.
  1. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mocumentary
  2. ^ https://vimeo.com/195570722
  3. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gimme_head_the_tale_of_the_cuyahoga_valley_bigfoot
  4. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6022940/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
  5. ^ IPSC :: Regional Status
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_July_16&oldid=1142618669"