Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 19 July 21 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. @Bethhdx: while your efforts are indeed appreciated, the consensus here is that this list does not meet our requirements, as laid out in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. Please don't feel bad, lots of articles get deleted, and it can take a while to get the hang of what we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Waterloo Road

List of births, marriages and deaths in Waterloo Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Waterloo Road births deaths and marriages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)  · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See

list notability. As noted at Waterloo Road births deaths and marriages, this list has no notability explanation. The sources given are mostly simply references to Wikipedia, which is circular (and a few to another user-generated wiki). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:42, 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 Draftify.

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs recorded by Kona

List of songs recorded by Kona (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)

None of the albums have WP pages, only one of the songs on which she performed as one of several singers has its own page Char Chokka Hoi Hoi. I do not think that this page is useful and not really worth a redirect either. Domdeparis (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that none of the albums have WP pages means the list is not useful for navigation, but that is not the only function of a list. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works says, "complete lists of works" are encouraged for musical artists, and "individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles". The sourcing, however, is abysmal. The sources covers only two albums and an advertising jingle, and a random commercial download site and a YouTube upload can hardly be called reliable scholarship. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Recently the author has created quite a few similar lists in
    alternative to deletion. Sourcing could be improved, judging from Dilshad Nahar Kona. Material that cannot be sourced could be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or delete. It is useless for navigation, as Worldbruce points out, but if it was properly sourced, it would be a respectable resource. At this stage, we don't know if 95% of it is unsourced or is pure fiction. Because this isn't a discography its a collection of songs someone was a part of, so there isn't a clear path to meeting the criteria for inclusion, but as a draft, it can either be sourced or eventually die. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 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) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Pilea

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the comment below.
    WP:NFOOTY, as the player has played in a UEFA match, which seems to fulfill the criterion that they play in a "competitive senior international match". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note the word "senior" in the text you've just quoted. Pilea has only ever played for Cyprus at the youth level, which
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:30, 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 as subsequent week offered no other input, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry voor alles

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

This doesn't seem like it's worth a wikipediapage. It's just a random, not very notable candid camera show. Polerbair (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I completed the nomination for the user. ansh666 20:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems like we're at a stage in Wikipedia where every single TV show is notable, and for this one there actually is some decent sourcing available--here, for instance, a very lengthy article in one of the best Dutch papers, which also claims that it was the most successful show of the season (and that it's like a Truman Show). The show won awards at two international festivals, and is in its second season. So yeah, keep. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 21:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies; also aired on a national network.
    chatter) 04:59, 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 as other no input given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A. Jones

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

The article is a probable

WP:NOTWEBHOST profile. 162.244.81.174 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I see that you tried but messed it up. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support the case for deletion of this article. It is vain and self-promoting. (213.205.198.243 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
This person is a run-of-the-mill fixed-paradigm researcher like thousands of others and has done nothing notable. There is no demonstration of significant originality to merit an encyclopedia article about him. I agree with the last contributor that this is a vanity article. Delete. (Cumonaveago007 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Note: the nomination and comments from Bduke above were copied from Talk:Jonathan A. Jones#Nomination for deletion by Conquistador2178 – Joe (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not listed correctly. I have to go to work, but will look into it later. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 15 papers on GS with over 100 cites each gives a clear pass of
    WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC).[reply
    ]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled. – Joe (talk) 01:02, 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) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bynder

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

Per

WP:NCORP. The Deloitte award may be notable, but the source is primary and Deloitte isn't an independent news organization - I wouldn't be surprised if they had some sort of skin the game when it comes to the success of Bynder (please, prove me otherwise). Outside of the aware I don't really see anything of significant notability here. Comatmebro (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:24, 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 as a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 20:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ansary

Riaz Ansary (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 speedy was contested and replaced by a prod which is invalid, since that would make it controversial and contested . Anyhow...completely unremarkable and non-notable individual with absolutely no coverage in RS (or non-rs.) Fails every criteria including the CCS personal essay. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The text is also identical to that found at http://www.peacetv.tv/en-gb/speakers/Riaz-Ansary. ... discospinster talk 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discospinster Thanks, I didn't realize it was still a CV. I'll withdraw this and nominate as g12. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:44, 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 Redirect as suggested, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael - St. Clement School

St. Michael - St. Clement 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)

Twice deleted via CSD for copyright and promotion, all that doesn't matter if the school is not independently notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources. While we often give high schools a free pass (and I agree with that) this is a small, parochial elementary school, K-8. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 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. Nomination withdrawn (

talk) 06:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Jan Lindhe

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

Not a notable person

talk) 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 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 Redirect as inevitably obvious result, merging is of course still available in history, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Xanda the lion

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

No indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - The story is being covered in every major newspaper around the world from the BBC, Washington Post, Guardian etc.. because of Xanada's connection to the Killing of Cecil the lion. If Xanda was not the offspring of Cecil, there would be no story. It's purely inheritance. Xanda is not independently notable. Xanda was killed legally with no controversy (that we know if so far). Thus merge into the Cecil article (already there). -- GreenC 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Xanda's story is linked to that of his father Cecil, not only in the sources that I saw, but in the article about Cecil. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cecil's article, history intact, without prejudice to recreation. There's nothing to merge. The story was covered by major news outlets but whatever story there is has not been developed or made it into the article. If it ever becomes too large for Cecil's article, which it probably won't, then split it out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:23, 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. References added to the article do not appear to be

reliable sources, however at least one is a photograph of a table. A Traintalk 08:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Vasile Troian

Vasile Troian (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 sources for eight years. Enough already. - Biruitorul Talk 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To check the new references
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 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.  Sandstein  08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Steel

Egyptian Steel (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)

Our fundamental policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy apply given the information and sources only exist as promotional listing content, and not we consider sufficient for notability, see sources: 1, 4 and 5 is company website, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are a funding report, and based on the sources then found here, they're still the same so none of it establishes independent reliable coverage, especially when quoted at WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG: [sources except] brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, quotations from an organization's personnel, routine notices or passing mentioon. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability which is what everything found is. Considering the past G11 deletion not even a year before an equally promotional article is restarted is not a good sign that content can actually be improved, worse when there's no substantial coverage. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of steel producers § Other major steel producers, which lists major steel producers. This will improve the merge target article. North America1000 08:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect only if needed because it's on our policy to not salvage, save or otherwise keep contents considered still a policy violation and merging it would equally violate it because, since the current information and sources are listing-esque, that would make the other article a host or listing itself, therefore not actually resolving anything. Alternatives to deletion is, as mentioned there, not an immediate factor and can still be outweighed by WP:Deletion policy itself. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There 's no point in merging/redirecting to a list. This is not one of the very few areas where we try for a comprehensive list regardless of notability . If the list article contains other non notable firms they should be removed DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) also.[reply]
  • Delete per policy statements above. Been fighting these COI-pushers around this and Hashima's article for a couple of years now. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I've also been fighting promotionalism at
    WP:GNG, with coverage from Reuters, The Time and MSN amongst others - and that's just looking for English-language sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
These are all company announcements which are unacceptable as noted by the highlighted green quote above in the nomination, (Sources: 1st is about opening new locations, 2nd is about their financials and both are a clearly labeled company interview, and 3rd is about a sponsored commercial). FWIW, I had examined some Egyptian publications but found nothing announcements myself, so that's a likely sign there's nothing actually different. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 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 as given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castello (film)

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

Fails

NFILM. Can't find much of substance online, just a few trailers, YouTube rips of the movie and fan blogs. I'm struggling to find any mention of the movie in the only source provided, either. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 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.

First of all, while I was pinged to this discussion before and answered the ping, my comment was merely repeating what policy says anyway without any opinion on the subject, so I don't consider myself barred from closing this discussion.

Then: The question of how to handle promotional articles is one that has sparked a lot of discussion with

WP:PROMO
violations reveals that the deciding factor in their !votes was not the promotional language but the lack of notability because of sources that are either about the person the foundation was dedicated to, only mention it in passing or are non-independent (and promotional) in nature. Even if one were to discount the PROMO-arguments, the only keep !voter did not manage to convince the rest of the participants that the sources he mentioned were sufficient to establish notability.

As for Tony's

BIO1E
in analogy to the subject at hand. That could also have been a reasonable argument to delete the article if the lack of notability hadn't been enough reason to do so anyway because the spirit of said guideline is after all to avoid creating articles about subjects when the whole coverage is related to a single event.

If someone wants to mention this subject in an "Aftermath" section of July 2016 Dhaka attack and redirect this article to that section, there is no consensus here against that.

Regards SoWhy 18:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abinta Kabir Foundation

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

Tragic loss but

WP:NOTMEMORIAL Atsme📞📧 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It also fails "long established" per
Wikipedia:NONPROFIT having been inaugurated in March 2017. Atsme📞📧 12:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that Abinta Kabir Foundation is currently an established NGO that is actively working on a dedicated cause. While it is true that the basis of the foundation is in memory of the late Abinta Kabir, it would be irresponsible to call the Abinta Kabir Foundation a memorial. The Foundation is working on pressing issues, such as acid victims and education, and establishing a very strong role throughout the city.

Furthermore, if you would kindly look into the article, you would see that no personal statements have been made and there each quote was cited by reputed news sources.

Lastly, I would again like to draw your attention to the fact that the article is indeed on Abinta Kabir Foundation and not on the deceased Abinta Kabir herself. If you do have other concerns please do let me know. I do not agree that this could be tagged as a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A blatantly promotional article from start to finish, clearly intended to impress us with what a worthwhile organisation the foundation is, enough so that in my opinion it could have been speedily deleted as promotional. Many of the references are certainly not independent sources, some of them do not give substantial coverage (e.g. one of them has all of two sentences about the foundation), some of them are clearly promotional in character, some of them are merely reports of transactions. Notability is therefore not demonstrated, but even if someone can provide evidence that there is notability so that we could have an article on the subject, this article is not suitable in view of its promotional nature. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
    talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per JamesBWatson. Reads like a
    WP:TOOSOON, as the foundation's only about 4 months old per the article. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Abinta Kabir Foundation does meet the notability standards for a non profit organisation. It has had influence nationally and has received international acceptance namely from the US Ambassador to Dhaka. I have also added new references, independent from the organisation, to show that the foundation has had significant coverage. I have removed the money transaction, as I do concede that may have sounded promotional. I have also altered the wording in the Inception and vision segment to better adhere to facts. Please do look into the changes and let me know if there are still any persisting issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is understood that, the foundation can surpass being a memorial and would become notable through its actions. Hell I am sided and biased towards seeing it becoming a very successful and notable organization. However, at present, the foundation is a memorial, in all intent and purpose (which is more than obvious from their website). And, the foundation haven't yet done anything much to warrant an Wikipedia entry. Per this, and per all mentioned above, I posit the article should be deleted. On another note, July 2016 Dhaka attack has quite some aftermath and this subject can be mentioned in that article (may be one sentence). @Nidhlet:, this AfD is not about the quality of the article, but current notability of the subject. --nafSadh did say 14:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have come in later in this conversation. So, it seems the promotional wording has been cleaned up and coverage in independent (reputable) news sources have been provided. I read one article where more than one ambassador from other countries attended an event commemorating this girl and the launch of this NGO. Of course that isn't the only reason for "keep". I think this article satisfies
    WP:CORPDEPTH. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Steve Quinn not sure if you noticed, but the organization is not even 6 mos. old so it fails notability on those grounds. Atsme📞📧 02:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I have read and reread the notability criteria, and the focal points are the scope of the foundation and the coverage. Both have been established in the article. Longevity is only part of the additional considerations and furthermore, longevity is a subpart to factors that have attracted widespread attention. Even in that clause, it satisfies size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, as it has been integrated with a gallery established in 2012 and even facilitated University of Dhaka and Acid Survivors Foundation. More importantly, in the same clause, it is clearly stated that This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. I would be grateful if you could consider the points I have raised.

User:Atsme. This topic doesn't fail notability, just because it is less than six months old. The standard for notability (per WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND) is receiving notice in publications independent of the organization, which has happened with this organization. Reputable news organizations have covered this topic. This is the main criteria for notability for any topic. Time is not necessarily a factor. Time in existence is only one factor that can be considered as an argument for notability. Also, I am noticing the wording in this article is not promotional. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For what it's worth, in my opinion, articles written like that should qualify for CSD G11, because it would "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". The notability is borderline at best. The coverage is trivial except of the news about the foundation's inauguration, which is a single event. Rentier (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The new insights by Steve Quinn need further investigation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier, I would kindly request you to look into the coverage of the Abinta Foundation Schools launched, the inauguration of the Abinta Gallery of Fine Arts with an exhibition, and the Abinta Kabir Cyber Center. Three other major accomplishments, other than the launch itself, have had significant coverage. For a foundation that is 4 months old, that is very significant and therefore, has created a ripple through the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with User:Rentier that a fundamental rewrite is in order to qualify as encyclopedic. I see this as a fact based, neutrally written article. And, in any case, coverage by sources independent of the subject determines "keep" or "deletion", not so much the wording of the article. Promotional, biased, or non-neutral wording can be fixed. But if the sources don't cover the topic then that cannot be fixed. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:NONPROFIT. The bar is also pretty high on what qualifies for notability in the philanthropic and/or nonprofit foundation area. DGG taught me with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_L._Furth, that: "Someone extremely wealthy is usually notable, and there is probably a line beyond which they can be presumed to be notable--a net worth of more than $ several billion might be realistic (5 years ago I might have said $1 billion, but things have changed at that end of the financial spectrum." With his statement in mind, I would think the same would apply to a non-profit foundation. Perhaps in a year or so, the Foundation itself will have achieved notability on its own, rather than as the result of inherited notability over the tragic loss of a sweet life. Atsme📞📧 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not agree that the articles only have one or two sentences about this organization. The organization is a significant part of the relevant coverage in the relevant articles. It is covered as much as her death is in several sources. The other sources cover the massacre and one source discusses her attendance at an American University. These are background articles that help the reader. There is no indication that WP:INHERITORG applies and there is not indication that WP:MEMORIAL applies to this article. Bringing into the conversation someone extremely wealthy is usually notable seems to be off-topic here. The only reason such a person would usually be notable is because it is a good bet the reliable sources have covered that person (that topic). Just as reliable sources cover this topic. Also, bringing DGG into the coversation seems to be the logical fallacy of
appealing to authority, and also seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. And I am not sure pinging DGG, to alert him to this discussion is appropriate. In fact, it is not appropriate. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It wouldn't have been proper for me to quote another editor without notifying him, and I take issue with your allegations. There is a similarity because regardless of whether it's a person or a non-profit organization it's still about donating time and money. Perhaps instead of picking on editors you should demonstrate exactly what you think the sources say that warrants the foundation's notability.Atsme📞📧 03:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding pinging DGG, please review or see:
WP: Vote stacking and WP:Canvassing. No, this is not about donating money. This is about an organization and its coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't need vote stack. What's wrong with you? You think DGG is going to partake in that anyway? Seriously? Switch to decaf. Atsme📞📧 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm only one person. That's not canvassing, especially as nobody can really predict how I am going to consider any particular case, whatever I may have said as a general principle, or in a somewhat related situation. In this case, I think there is already some evidece of notability , and I think an article could be written. But this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia -- it's pure advocacy, to the level that had i seen it upon submission,I might have considered G11. This has become a familiar problem here: someone write an advocacy-vased article on a noble cause, and it makes us all fell very uncomfortable at deleting it. But that's the meaning of NPOV: it's easy for us to remove advocacy for something we're indifferent to, but for an encyclopedia to have integrity, we need to remove advocacy irrespective of such considerations. Looking at the article in detail, I see the pervasiveness of emotional language/. "potential" "to make the world a better place" " “I have to say the foundation and everyone who is working for it, ... are very fortunate because Abinta left this amazing road map of what her dreams were and what she wanted to see done," ", the foundation strives to preserve her spirit through their work." the article even summarizes it (using OR, for the phrase in not in the reference): "Respects were paid through emotionally charged speeches". The current article is one of them. Sometimes this is an isolated paragraph and can be fixed, sometimes it compromises the entire article--as here. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to know SoWhy's (who is a prolific AfD closer) opinion on this argument in light of his recent statement that promotionalism is not a deletion rationale if the content can be fixed by editing. Rentier (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:STUBIFY). A parallel would be the blue pencil doctrine often found in law: If you strike all the promotional parts and a valid stub remains, then editing the article actually fixes the problem. If not, deletion is to be preferred. I have no opinion on this subject at hand though. Regards SoWhy 14:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well that's all fine and dandy, but the sources themselves are what establishes the promotional aspects not so much how it's written - it's the overall flavor - so until the foundation itself establishes itself to satisfy N and V applying NPOV it fails. We cannot fix all the reasons this particular article fails N at this point in time. Perhaps in a year or so, maybe. There are a lot of foundations out there in the world - so keep in mind WP:NOT. Atsme📞📧 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For a new organization there's always some judgment involved here--if the press coverage of even the founding of an organization is sufficiently substantial , it can be possible to write an article. What counts as "sufficiently substantial" in any particular case, can only be interpreted here, at an AfD discussion. Usually it's very clear that there isn't sufficient coverage, but sometimes its borderline, and debatable. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though NOTSPAM is a horrible argument here, in my opinion. I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of invoking it more often, but its clearly fixable in this case if the article was notable. The article is not, however, notable. This is an organization founded in memory of the tragic death of a person that received initial coverage on its founding, but hasn't demonstrated long-term notability.
    WP:BLP1E, I think we can see it applied here. There is no firm rule on a foundation created as a memorial to a victim's death, but if the victim is not themselves notable and included in the encyclopedia, we can safely say that the memorial foundation that got some press after the tragedy also likely isn't either. Analyzing don't demonstrate long-term notability that we would expect for the victim, nor for the foundation. If there is more coverage in a year or two we can look at creating an article then. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 25 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) 19:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Avignon shooting

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

Per PROD which was removed by an IP without an actual explanation. This received about two days of news coverage and disappeared (

WP:LASTING impact can be sufficiently determined and, just to clarify, this was an act of street violence. It is tragic but not notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable crime; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete motive unclear except that terrorism has been ruled out. But whether motive was personal, criminal-gang related, or something else, coverage seems limited to day of the shooting. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if something like an interesting motive attracts greater media coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - MrX 20:53, 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. SoWhy 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Sahraian

Mehdi Sahraian (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)

Note: This article had a previous AfD at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sahraeean. These are the sources provided from that AfD: [9], [10], [11], and one other that is the same copy as the Daily Star article.

The subject does not meet

WP:OR. The two books written about him [12] and [13] are both Wikipedia copies. None of the provided sources can meet the requirement for significant coverage beyond the statement that he "Is an economist". Ideally delete, if not draftify menaechmi (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. No notability rambling, promotional. How did it last so long?Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Blow it up per PROMO and NOT. DrStrauss talk 11:29, 27 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) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila White (politician)

AfDs for this article:
Sheila White (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected politician (fails

routine coverage of election candidates in local media. At the 2007 AFD, one user recommended keeping as she is a "perennial candidate" - not an inherently notable status, and besides, five elections don't make you a perennial candidate. Madg2011 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created (not by me) in 2006, a time when Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are today — technically, at the time what made her eligible for an article was not her unsuccessful candidacies, but her work as a political communications consultant. But that's no longer an automatic free pass to notability either — we're much stricter in 2017 than we were a decade ago about how well an article has to be sourced to satisfy our notability standards, but the depth and breadth of referencing present here just isn't cutting it anymore. And the merger solution that I advocated for in the first AFD is also a consensus that's been weakened in the ensuing decade — there's also now
    WP:BLP even the candidate lists aren't allowed to contain much more than the candidate's "name, rank and serial number" anymore either, so there's not really any content to preserve beyond what's already present in any other article where her name appears. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

(edit conflict)

  • Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The quality of the article is low and the tone promotional, but quality should not be confused with notability The WP:XY conundrum itself defeats the NOTINHERITED label. Toronto is hardly a "mere local" media market, and I believe that we have sufficient coverage from a combination of enough sources to pass GNG. In some cases, these perennial candidates can reach GNG on account of their repeated attempts generating sufficient coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
No, we don't have sufficient coverage from a combination of enough sources to pass GNG. What we have is one deadlinked unreliable source (Alaya) that contributes nothing toward notability because it represented her staff profile on the website of a former employer, and three articles (two in Now and one in the Toronto Star) that glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about something else. Exactly none of them counts for beans toward notability, because every one of them is either not independent of her or not substantively about her. And incidentally, nobody in this discussion raised a
WP:NOTINHERITED argument in the first place, so you're arguing against a strawman with that one. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 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) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eilish Redmond

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

Non-notable person with little useful information about who they are, the article is also pretty much orphaned and is not really integrated into the rest of Wikipedia. There is little reason for this article to exist. BSOleader (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:03, 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. Alex ShihTalk 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

山东省昌邑第一中学

山东省昌邑第一中学 (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 written in english from July 16th. O1lI0 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:04, 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) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BCMMetrics

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

Non-notable company, fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources either point to the parent company (MHA Consulting) or contain no mention of the article subject at all. The only source that makes mention of BCM [14] is referring to something else entirely, and yet was cited in this article. Per the tags on the article, serves to promote the company. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with nom. MB 18:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing that passes
    WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 15:17, 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) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FK Budućnost Arilje

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

Firstly, it lacks notability and also is completely unreferenced, such an insignificant club is hard to prove to exist, the article is also relatively useless to a reader as it has little information BSOleader (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:50, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Xiangzhong

Liao Xiangzhong (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)

Redirect to the draft(

Draft:Liao Xiangzhong), or delete it until the page does not look like an ad. O1lI0 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:02, 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) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visar Musliu

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:10, 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) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Aleksovski

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 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. The lone dissenting !vote is only asserting that the topic is notable but not showing it Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of House Targaryen

Family tree of House Targaryen (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)

Also nominated:

These are all family trees from the A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones fictional universe. There is also everything in Category:A Song of Ice and Fire family tree templates, which will need to be deleted separately via TfD after this discussion concludes.

The reasons for deletion are:

  • These family trees are not notable (
    WP:GNG
    ) because no third-party sources discuss them as such (as family trees, rather than the fictional families, but these are likely also not notable and do not seem to have articles).
  • The contents are also original research (
    WP:OR
    ) because the set of characters in the TV series and the novels differ significantly and it is not clear which of both, or a combination, these family trees are meant to represent.
  • Furthermore, to the extent that the family trees appear to have been copied from the frequently cited source "Martin, George R. R.; García Jr., Elio M.; Antonsson, Linda (2014)", they are copyright violations. (Real-world family trees document facts, which are are not copyrightable, but fictional family trees are just another copyrightable work of fiction.)
  • Finally, it should be apparent at a glance that this is the sort of in-universe fancruft that belongs in specialized fan wikis, not in a general purpose encyclopedia that treats fiction from an out-of-universe perspective (see
    WP:NOTPLOT directs that articles must not only consist of a summary of works of fiction, and these articles fail this policy.  Sandstein  15:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, these are a bit too fancrufty for my liking, and I don't think you're ever going to get around the problems of OR and copyvios. These trees should be left to the GOTwikis, not Wikipedia. Somethingwickedly (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others. At best, it should be template-ified and put on the main list page, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to delve as deep into the ASOIAF fandom as westeros.org does. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I am in agreement with the above comments.
    Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 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) 19:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bankyondbeatz

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

Subject does not meet

WP:NMUSIC criteria. Sourcing is limited, a standard g-search brings up the do-not-cites of Soundcloud, Twitter, Spotify, etc. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I found two sources which looked reliable, I do not think they were enough to establish notability of the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:04, 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) 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt O'Riley

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

Contested PROD. Failed

WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played first-team football for Fulham JMHamo (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - has only played in youth teams, not notable for any other reason. Neiltonks (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:33, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartDebit

SmartDebit (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 fails

talk) 11:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 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.  Sandstein  16:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Nate

Davey Nate (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 musician. Davey Nate has received co-lyricist, lyricist, co-producer or producer credits on lots of songs, but no significant coverage can be found. All of the citations in the article are just credits on various songs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61 I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. Davey Nate has been the discussion of many articles including reddit.com where he is working with high level k-pop singers. He's accreddited on all the artists' music wikipedia songs and albums. I do believe it is notable to be written about in several publication and to be a well-known k-pop, pop writer/composer. Please re-consider. Dman54321 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dman54321: Our opinions clearly differ on the notability of this artist. The community can decide. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @
WP:RS
. Redit, for instance, is unlikely to count.
@WikiDan61: You're comment was added after our conversation below. And without a signature. To add, Reddit is a very well established news source. Dman54321 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician as nominated, (self-promotional article created by the subject IMO). - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile.[1] Dman54321 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Notability". Wikipedia. 2017-06-25.
Comment @
WP:GNG for all topics in general. The article on Notability (as construed broadly in the world) is not relevant to this discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment @
WP:MUSIC. Have you miscategorized Davey Nate in your pursuing of the article process of deletion? Also, I have not entered his awards. Davey's songs have been heard on radio, tv, and top placements in charts in different countries. Please allow me to add this detail in which would prove why this article should remain. Dman54321 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @
WP:COMPOSER
specifically state:
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria
The one criterion that may be met by Nate is "composer, co-composer, lyricist or co-lyricist of a notable song" (for the song
EXO-CBX. But there is no reliable source to qualify his contribution to this song, and this criteria only speaks to composers who may be notable. We still require multiple instances of significant coverage, none of which have been found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @
EXO-CBX? Also I've found another link for Hey Mama! [1] Dman54321 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ivNxDQAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP3&dq=hey+mama+davey+nate&source=bl&ots=B9EMJwNERV&sig=ZJdlTUduKOgE9hWurkpRIBdpj7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqjJLY75jVAhUE6WMKHfVWBcoQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=hey%20mama%20davey%20nate&f=false
@Dman54321: I've expressed my opinions about the available sources. You've expressed yours. Let's let the rest of the community say what they will. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:COMPOSER. I'm all up for suggestions and any help anyone can provide me with for the page Davey Nate. I welcome all help and improvements. Just please don't delete but help me instead. I want to improve this article so that users can benefit from it. Very plainly Nate's wikipedia reflects factual work he's done with the artists listed. No smokes or mirrors. Just fact. Thank you. Dman54321 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
How can you improve nobility if it's not there ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime:All credits are there. Dman54321 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator WikiDan61 this artist or composer is not notable. Puffery and -CITEKILL have been removed from the article. CITEKILL is frequently used to try to make a subject look notable. A name dropping laundry list has been removed from the lede twice now. Notability is of course not inherited. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@
singer from his profile twice and you've placed it back on. I've placed sources on the bottom songs of Davey's page but you removed those. Under which premise did you remove the bottom sources? I'm just assuming you didn't take enough time to closely look at what your doing. Instead I think you were solely focus on hitting the undo button. To date those are still removed by you after I replaced them. Dman54321 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is never a good argument in a situation like this. Antonioatrylia (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Antonioatrylia: I read it from the first couple edits you made a few days ago. I'm ok with you deleting the over citations on the top songs. However, you removed single citations form songs per song. I'm seeing your missing the point. You're leaning too much on Citekill and it doesn't explain why you've overlooked all other appropriate edits and adjustments I've made to improve the article. Isn't that why your here? Is it not to improve articles? Your over looking my attempted improvements. Dman54321 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have had my say here. I have quoted the policies which back up my edits. My !ivote stands as Delete. I have no plans to get drawn into any fruitless arguements regarding my improvements to the article. This is not the proper place. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I am also intending to hat various WP:BADGERING comments of unnecessarily extended content. —
    velut luna 09:46, 28 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Athu Ithu Ethu

Athu Ithu Ethu (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 television program. Article (under a different spelling) was deleted here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adhu_Idhu_Edhu&action=edit&redlink=1 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:GNG; no indication that it is any more notable than when it was previously deleted Spiderone 16:43, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sirippuda

Sirippuda (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 television program. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:53, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

First Fate

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

Does not meet

the web notability guidelines. The sources given are all press releases, promotional pieces, or affiliated. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; the article is full of promotional copy and there are no good sources.
    talk) 05:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:53, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Coconut hound

Coconut hound (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)

Coconut hound seems to be an affectionate name rather than an encyclopedic name for this dog. The article does not have any reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [15]; fails
    WP:N. North America1000 03:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:50, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. A redirect can always be created later if it's a plausible search term. SoWhy 06:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sauvali

Sauvali (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 sources. May be redirect to Characters in Mahabharata Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because for same reason:[reply]

Sughada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:57, 6 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) 07:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:50, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Steve Hartley (racing driver)

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Successful in a competition which doesn't meet criteria. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 4 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) 07:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:50, 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 redirect to

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Kalakka Povathu Yaaru? (season 6)

Kalakka Povathu Yaaru? (season 6) (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 television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to consider whether this could be merged/redirected to List of programs broadcast by Star Vijay
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:50, 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 redirect to Candice Hutchings. If the author's article is deleted as well, this redirect will disappear with it but that seems to be the consensus here. SoWhy 06:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Edgy Veg Cookbook

The Edgy Veg Cookbook (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 non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, fails

WP:BKCRIT. Rentier (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to justify this passing NBOOK. If the author's article survives it can redirect there, but only if it does.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:41, 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) 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Artists Entertainment

Golden Artists Entertainment (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)

NN production company, sourced solely from its own website and IMDB. No evidence it meets the GNG, fails

WP:CORP. Ravenswing 10:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 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. A Traintalk 08:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanvic Consulting

Kanvic Consulting (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 consulting firm with little to no actual coverage. All the sources lack depth or are basic listings or one line quotes from the founder, fails

WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your review. Kanvic Consulting is one of the most widely searched consulting firms in Gurgaon and Delhi. And hence people do need to know about its functions and origin. Some of the cites may not provide detailed information about the company, but are still relevant sources and from relevant organizations. If however, some need to be removed, that can be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.nilasis (talk • contribs) 10:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC) — B.nilasis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: If "people do need to know about (a company's) functions and origin", that is a legitimate function of its company website; this is an encyclopaedia not an additional hosting option. Also,
    WP:DISCLOSE, but I see no response? AllyD (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Kanvic" created was from the same account (not an alternate account) and directly went to speedy deletion. The article "Kanvic Consulting" has been updated to be more in sync with the Wikipedia terms and policies. If there is anything I can do to improve this article, please tell me how instead of just going ahead and deleting it. Thank you.

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  08:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria von Kohler

Maria von Kohler (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 can see no indication that this artist meets

WP:ARTIST Derek Andrews (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:39, 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 redirect to

WP:NMUSIC is only a reason for deletion as a stand-alone article. Regards SoWhy 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

They Only Love You When You Die

They Only Love You When You Die (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. No charting or reviews Jennica✿ / talk 19:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NALBUM
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:OR. Although if someone wants to do a selective merge that's ok. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 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, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Novasque

Olivier Novasque (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 work/spam.WP is not a business directory!PR sources in abundance as usual! Winged Blades Godric 16:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- spam; content includes: "...the leading global provider of Predictive Sales-to-Cash solutions!" Etc. The subject's company, Sidetrade, is a deletion candidate itself. I just PROD'ed it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Articles on this subject have twice been deleted from the French Wikipedia as not meeting the criteria for inclusion [16]. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A
    WP:SPA article on a businessman. The article is partly a CV, partly a list of the subject's company's activities. I am seeing nothing to indicate individual biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 19:57, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Call Of Gabriel

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

Fails

talk) 15:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:37, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Christopher Indermaur

Christopher Indermaur (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:BIO. Coverage merely confirms he is a mining executive but nothing indepth in third party sources LibStar (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no independent 3rd party coverage of the subject; all I'm seeing are comments by the subject on company performance. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Kjøller

Magnus Kjøller (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)

Vanity page for a Danish entrepreneur. Pieced together from trivial mentions, primary sources such as his own twitter feed and his own company posting videos of his charitable activities. There is no substantial coverage in

talk) 11:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a blatantly promotional / vanity bio written by an SPA with no trace of notability. --Lockley (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "bio spam" on this "multi-entrepreneur, business angel,[1] business commentator and society debater[2]" -- not notable in any of the fields mentioned, whatever they are :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Lyons (racing driver)

Michael Lyons (racing driver) (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 meet

WP:GNG. Won a competition which doesn't meet criteria at MOTORSPORT. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:36, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhar Abbas

Fakhar Abbas (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 to meet

WP:GNG. some cited sources are self published while some are not RS and some doesn't mention the subject at all. Saqib (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are works attributed to him on Google Scholar I found. Have you checked across those?
Abbas, F. I., Rooney, T. P., Mian, A., Bhatti, Z. I., & Haider, J. (2015). The Distribution, Population Status, and Wildlife Product Trade of Himalayan Musk Deer in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Journal of Bioresource Management, 2(3), 5.
Abbas, F. I., Bhatti, Z. I., Haider, J., & Mian, A. (2015). Bears in Pakistan: Distribution, population biology and human conflicts. Journal of Bioresource Management, 2(2), 1.
Abbas, F. I., Rooney, T. P., Haider, J., & Mian, A. (2013). Food Limitation as a Potentially Emerging Contributor to the Asian Vulture Crisis. Journal of Plant and Animal Science, 23(6), 1758.
Abbas, F. I., Rooney, T. P., & Mian, A. (2013). Grey Wolf in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan: Distribution, Abundance, and Persecution. Canid Biology & Conservation, 16(6), 18.
Fakhar‐i‐Abbas, F., Akhtar, T., & Mian, A. (2008). Food and feeding preferences of Himalayan gray goral (Naemorhedus goral bedfordi) in Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Zoo biology, 27(5), 371-380.
Fakhar-i-Abbas, S., Akhtar, T., & Mian, A. (2011). Time budgets and ethological observations of wild and enclosed grey goral. Wildlife Biology in Practice.
Hameed, W. Fakhar-i-Abbas. and Mian, Afsar.(2009). Population Features of Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak) in Margalla Hills National Park, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Zool, 41(2), 137-142.
Janjua, S., Fakhar-I-Abbas, William, K., Malik, I. U., & Mehr, J. (2017). DNA Mini-barcoding for wildlife trade control: a case study on identification of highly processed animal materials. Mitochondrial DNA Part A, 28(4), 544-546.
Hameed, W., Ullah, I., Janjua, S., Abbas, F. I., & Mian, A. (2014). On Individual, Sex and Age Differentiation of Indian House Crow (Corvus splendens) Call: A Preliminary Study in Potohar, Pakistan. Journal of Bioresource Management, 1(1), 4.

Mar4d (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the subject has been cited in some books. I think he has contributed to most of them, but I am still failing to see if he would meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. Other than that , apparently this bio focus on organisations for which he works/worked. --Saqib (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. What does is having the stuff noted by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 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 Keep as consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi horror shows

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

Contested PROD. I have two concerns regarding this list. The first is that it seems like something which could be better-served as a category (admittedly that's not the most convincing reason for deletion in and of itself). The second is that the sourcing available at the moment - and that which I've found searching as far as I can - seems to be confined to "listicle"-style articles, rather than any serious analysis of what makes these particular TV shows notable as a group and not otherwise, which points to an issue with

WP:LISTN as far as the list is concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:42, 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, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonfare

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

WP:OR, or perhaps only WP_TOOSOON. Lithopsian (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's a bit hard to search, but I'm not seeing a footprint in the literature that's any much larger than its originators. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 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) 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando F. S. Rodrigues

Fernando F. S. Rodrigues (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 individual does not meet any criteria. To be fair a lot of the original hyperbole which might have indicated notability if substantiated was removed. There is a serious coi in the authorship resulting in essentially a vanity page. PRehse (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delete I agree with the nominator. The COI creator of this article put in a lot of peacock to make this person sound notable. I cleaned it up to the best of my ability in the time I had available. The articles which are cited do not indicate notability. --VVikingTalkEdits 13:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In what possible way is this gentleman notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - perhaps laudable, but passing references in multiple sources do not establish a clear NPOV, NOR article. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:40, 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) 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lieres (disambiguation)

Lieres (disambiguation) (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)

Disambiguation not required per

WP:2DABS. The 2 articles have hatnotes to each other and to Liers. PROD removed previously by user:Siuenti because "lieres is a plausible search term for liers" which has been fixed by hatnotes Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hatnotes work best here. Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:54, 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.  Sandstein  08:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern man

Southern man (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 8 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I was inclined to
    14 reasons for deletion. There's no point editors discussing a rationale that does not allow us to delete the article. May I suggest, Kintetsubuffalo, that you thus withdraw the AfD? Alternatively, please expand on the rationale and put something forward that meets one of the 14 deletion reasons. Schwede66 18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The New Zealand Listener has just gone online via a website called Noted. For New Zealand cultural terms, you wouldn't get many better sources than that magazine. I don't know whether the search term "Southern man" site:noted.co.nz works outside of New Zealand. If it does, you'll find plenty of relevant references. Schwede66 19:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the term is specific to New Zealand and not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; I might support a redirect to a more general term or to Wiktionary. The "references" are things such as beer ads [17], Youtube videos [18], and book reviews [19].
    talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Stop making up Wikipedia policies. Being New Zealand-specific is not grounds for deletion, and a book review (or the book being reviewed) is an entirely reasonable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being specific to one coun try has never been a reason for deletion of an article and - unless you want to chop out more than half of Wikipedia's articles - never will be. And there is a difference between a reference beign a beer advertisement and a reference being to an encyclopedia which shows a beer advertisement as an example.Grutness...wha? 01:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:45, 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.

I said most of what is relevant re. canvassing and SPA editors when I relisted the discussion, so I'll try to make it short. Fortunately, after relisting, discussion of the provided sources ensued with consensus being that their coverage is either not substantial or independent enough to meet the threshold of either

WP:BASIC
. With no more sources mentioned, the only possibly outcome was deletion.

Regards SoWhy 06:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Davidson

Beau Davidson (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 originally accepted at

WP:MUSICBIO. The subject did have their 15 minutes of fame performing for Donald Trump, however this is not sufficient to establish notability despite some coverage of the performance and of Trump's reaction to it. The slew of largely self-published or IMDB sources in the article as originally accepted have not expanded to include significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In addition, the article -- and its talk page -- have become a battleground between a number of unregistered accounts and WP:SPA accounts. Some of them appear to be detractors of the subject, and some of them are alleged to be the subject or to represent the subject. Some of the latter have also made allegations on the article talk page about named individuals that they claim are responsible for the negative editing. Although such contentious editing is not in itself a sufficient reason for deletion, in cases where notability is not established or is unclear, it contributes to the argument for deletion because Wikipedia should not be further risking unnecessary harm to the BLP (or to anyone else). The article has been protected twice for BLP violations. MPS1992 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the news for single event, but as pointed out above, there are multiple inaugural balls, not all necessarily attended by the president (and lets be honest: the news coverage for these particular series of balls indicates it was difficult to put together a line-up. Any performer who agreed to participate invariably was rewarded with press coverage beyond what other inaugural ball line-ups would receive.) Otherwise, the provided references make claims that are hard to be backed up owing to faulty links. Efforts to find them on my own were unsuccessful. I find nothing about this subject on the Emmy's website's list of past nominees; most likely this was a local market nomination, which is not the same for wikipedia notability purpose. And even then I can't find a significant independent, third party source. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the notability objections I made on the talk page. GringisMan (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 98.240.15.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: 98.240.15.40 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
Comment The Emmy Nashville source actually mentions a regional nomination rather than a national one, and thus fails
talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Is there a policy on whether or not subjects of articles can weigh in on whether or not the articles should be deleted? Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot see any way he meets the musician notability guidelines, just one simple moment of fame CaribbeanTruth (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
canvassed
to this discussion.
— 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:715B:1EDA:FD7D:5C28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
canvassed
to this discussion.
  • Delete What's crazy is that the subject of this article has been personally running interference to prevent any "positive" coverage from being expunged, and from anything remotely negative -- even objectively sourced material -- from being included in the post. It seems clear this is a self-promotional article and does not abide by Wikipedia standards. 73.238.84.249 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 73.238.84.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
canvassed
to this discussion.
  • Note to closer: A journalist who has reported on this subject negatively has mentioned this AfD on Twitter, so recent IP !votes are likely related to that canvassing. Please be careful to weigh policy arguments, not numbers. ~ Rob13Talk 15:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Just want to note that the subject of the article is also posting about his Wikipedia page and fighting "trolls" on it. The most recent "Keep" vote above, flagged for being an IP address with "few or no other edits outside this topic" is almost certainly the subject of the article in question, and should also be considered when counting votes and considering his input. Thanks 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:715B:1EDA:FD7D:5C28 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These posts made by the subject were the direct cause of the journalist's tweet. See the thread I started on
    talk) 16:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh, I completely agree. Just wanted to note that the journalist who tweeted was responding to an initial tweet by the subject of the article, so it's likely both sides have votes that may require scrutiny 2601:18D:4700:1DE8:15D7:EE19:BC75:F2B7 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • even if you don't count the votes from editors with few contributions/IP addresses (and I include myself in the former) the vote is still in favor of deletion by a decent margin. When will a decision be made? Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
arguments to avoid
 in such a discussion. Arguments like "Enough coverage" (without demonstrating it) are as unhelpful as "Just not notable". Other non-arguments include "Created by the subject", "Why is the subject allowed to participate?" and "The numbers are in favor of deletion".

For further discussion, editors should also remember that not meeting

WP:GNG
is met. TonyTheTiger has pointed out some sources which have not been discussed by others. So if you wish to sway the discussion in a certain direction, do so by providing rational arguments.

The decision will be made, to answer the last question, when consensus has emerged but that requires people actually discussing whether the sources might be sufficient to establish notability under any guideline, not just

WP:MUSICBIO
.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's clear that my opinion is not welcome nor worth much consideration here, but if you look at his entry as it currently stands, he was in two plays and went to school. I don't see how that, in any universe, makes him notable enough for inclusion. It's amazing to me that we are now going to spend at even more time debating if this random guy's self-created entry should stay up. As I have stated before, his performance was at an UNOFFICIAL inaugural ball, and there aren't Wikipedia pages for the other musical acts (DJ Freedom, The Reagan Years, The Mixx) that played it too. We don't have a Wikipedia page for the one of the other two hosts in that Miss Virginia pageant (Tiffany Haas, Miss Ohio 2002), so that wouldn't appear to be a high enough bar for inclusion. As many have already stated, his performance for Donald Trump (which Trump didn't ask for and was apparently surprised by) is the most notable thing he's done, and it was not covered in a positive light. If you do decide that he's notable enough to have his own entry, that will have to be mentioned. So an obscure musician's Wikipedia entry will basically be about how he performed for Trump at the request of a local branch of the Republican party and that performance was universally panned. Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been made aware that my argument might have been too weak for consensus, and therefore, will add that the sources are also not enough to meet the requirements set by

talk) 16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. I was staying out of this, but I just looked at Tony's sources, and they moved me to participate. The Miss Virginia thing is a brief mention, so it isn't "substantial" in the sense of GNG. This is substantial coverage, but it's only in a local newspaper. A local newspaper covering a local artist isn't worth much; it's the type of human interest thing that's covered just to say "Look what people from this area are doing!". I'd want to see at least regional coverage of that sort of thing to factor it into GNG in a significant way. This flirts the line with substantial, but I think it falls short; he's basically in a straight-up list with "quick facts" about inaugural performers. That suggests the notable thing is the inauguration, and he's just associated. The article isn't about him. This is comprised almost entirely of quotes from Davidson, and so it isn't particularly independent. Further, it seems clear this is only being covered due to the association with Trump, a very notable figure. I'm not seeing significant coverage of Davidson as a notable individual separate from Trump anywhere in these sources. ~ Rob13Talk 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on one source. I’ve already weighed in as a delete, but with this re-listing I think I could clarify the nature of the much cited Emmy nomination for the benefit of editors trying to gauge the importance of this subject’s nomination in relation to wikipedia notability. According to the source cited in this thread, his name was among a list of nominees from the Nashville TN market’s submission to the MidSouth Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which encompasses any broadcast member station in Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama. The Nashville list comprises 9 pages worth of names. I counted (yes, I really counted) 140 names on page 1. If we generously assume the other eight pages list an equal number of names, there are over 1000 people “nominated” from a single market. Add that to the probable numbers from the rest of the broadcast markets in the MidSouthChapter, then add it to all the other national regional chapters it’s fair to assume there are tens of thousands of people every year who can claim to be Emmy nominated. He is one among those tens of thousand. Maybe that’s good for including on a resume or LinkedIn profile, but as justification for an entry in an encyclopedia? Just to win one of these locale categories (which this subject didn’t do) is far, far from the same thing as being associated with what we think of as Emmy Winner’s per the National Awards. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this going to be over and done with tomorrow? It's dragged on for weeks now and doesn't seem like it should be that difficult of a decision one way or the other. Lovetoolistentocountry (talk) 01:58, 27 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, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedridden

Bedridden (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)

dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic passes
    WP:GNG, as evidenced by Google Scholar results alone. Searches and custom searches in Google Books provide plenty more sources. Furthermore, the article has some non-definitional content, with information about an Indian study involving bedridden individuals. See source examples below; many more are available. Not seeing how deleting this article would improve the encyclopedia, as it can be easily expanded. North America1000 09:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the references North America provides appear to be about being bedridden. Being bedridden appears to be a state taken for granted. Rathfelder (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per North America. It's a legitimate stub. DrElgin (talk)
  • Keep - I put it in a sandbox in my userspace and plan on improving this topic and article. It has a lot of references that I can add and is a very important topic. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 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 Keep, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hays Ridge, Edmonton

Hays Ridge, Edmonton (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 is about a new subdivision, without any significant development until late last year. The neighborhood doesn't have any significant history which would warrant a Wikipedia article. I couldn't find any sources to prove that it is currently populated. While the article has sources, they are all from the

let's talk about that 22:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
let's talk about that 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
let's talk about that 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to consider whether redirecting/merging would be a possible alternative to deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prior consensus at similar articles as explained above. Edmonton neighborhoods are notable, and if nominator thinks they're not, he should establish consensus rather than picking them off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 25 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 revert to set index. Similar situations have occurred in the past. Each instance reported has resulted in the article being reverted to the previous state.

(non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

True Influence

True Influence (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)

Self-promotion; fails

WP:NCORP
.

Page history seems to show that the an editor wrote the True Influence article in their sandbox, then avoided the AFC process by choosing a little-used disambiguation page (Spindel), overwriting the contents of it with what they had in the sandbox, moving Spindel to True Influence, and redirecting Spindel to someone with the surname. This flies in the face of several proper procedures. Madg2011 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just restore the disambiguation page and delete the new redirect? Cthomas3 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss Cthomas3's suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:49, 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. SoWhy 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Morecraft

Joe Morecraft (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 pastor lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No in-depth RS coverage apparent, doesn't appear to meet
    WP:ANYBIO.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:46, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar Krug

Dagmar Krug (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 can't find any evidence that this pianist is notable enough for an article. The article was created by

single-purpose account on both wikis. Graham87 06:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Absolutely non-notable. A self-publishing piano teacher; all citations from her own Youtube postings.--Smerus (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerus. Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject comprehensively fails the notability criteria at
WP:MUSICBIO. All her recordings are self-published. There is no evidence of her having won any major awards. The only award I could find was from an utterly non-notable short film "festival" in Bremen where her music in a 10-minute film received an award. There were ten entries, including one from the local school. The festival was attended by 100 people, according to this article on the municipal website of Bremen, which has a one-sentence mention of her. It was the only remotely independent source I could find. In the interim, I am going to remove all the links to her YouTube videos which in turn contain links to Amazon to purchase the recordings. There's no reason for this blatant advertising to be hosted on Wikipedia, even for the duration of this AfD. The version containing the 9 YouTube links and the link to Spotify masquerading as references is here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 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 as given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Stransky

Vladan Stransky (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 hockey player and fails

WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:15, 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) 19:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firmin D'souza

Firmin D'souza (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)

Clearly of only very local significance, U14, local league Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He coaches youth and senior association football teams, and the coverage in the referenced sources is routine and local. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 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. Passes

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Blades in the Dark

Blades in the Dark (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 subject appears to lack notability and the article has zero references. I suggest, if there's a documented connection to the designer or the publisher, the page be merged with one or the other, or both. Ewilen (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article is coming along, with several citations by now. The game has won awards and has been independently reviewed at belloflostsouls; it was published in print by a reputable publisher after a highly successful kickstarter; I suggest that the nominator rethink the nom given the activity at the article page (which was a brutal stub when nominated, to be sure). Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (Corrected from vote.) The citations added so far are simply references to the Kickstarter page for the game and an entry in rpggeek, a specialty catalog. The mechanical summary that's now been entered would best be included in a review in rpggeek, with the rpggeek entry cited at the publisher and/or designer's page in Wikipedia. Ewilen (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Um...you're the nominator; you shouldn't be !voting. Also, please sign your posts.Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article needs work but the topic is certainly notable Euchrid (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 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 Keep, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker (producer)

Slacker (producer) (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)

notability, Wikipedia is not a memorial Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A preliminary search suggests he meets the notability criteria for a

musician, especially points 2 and 3 in the 'Other' category. Just briefly I found multiple, non-self-published, independent sources describing him as 'celebrated' and his work as 'seminal' and of 'critical acclaim'. This implies the possibility exists for further reliable sources to come to light.Landscape repton (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 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 no consensus. To delete, but consensus that, if kept, this topic should be covered at Eileen Simpson and Ben White.  Sandstein  16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Simpson (artist)

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

Even looking at the additional information in the earlier version containing copyvio, I do not se how this meets either the GNG or the specialized guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
then hte best thing to do would be give it a try. I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 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 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 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. With the nominator agreeing that the article needs improvement rather than deletion, I'm closing this Afd as a keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands-Kazakhstan relations

Kazakhstan–Netherlands relations (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 credibly claim to meet standards set by Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral_relations Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 04:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article itself says, the Netherlands is one of Kazakhstan's most important trading partners; 50% of foreign direct investment in Kazakhstan begins in the Netherlands. There are plenty of sources documenting this relationship including [24], [25], [26], [27] and others.--TM 10:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this entry meets the the standards set by Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral_relations as the two countries are engaged in significant trade. It is well documented that the Netherlands is the largest foreign direct investor in Kazakhstan.--User:BrotmeisterB 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— BrotmeisterB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment then I would recommend that this important information be included in the article. It was only two sentence long when I nominated it, making no mention of trade. It is only two sentences long right now, making generalized mention of trade. I do believe there is potential for a substantive article, this is just not up to form yet. Would love to see it improve! Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 20:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Correction misremembered article.Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 20:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it barely two hours after it started. Are you familiar with
WP:BEFORE? It seems as though neither C nor D were followed.--TM 02:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought it was ~4 hours, although could be wrong?. Familiar with
AfC process! Best, Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 05:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
OK I didn't think the requirement was to populate the bulk of an article within the first few edits of its creatin. And I don't think that's what you're suggesting but either way I think we can agree now. Also upon further read, the list Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral_relations are suggestions and not requirements. There are many other facts that legitimize a formal bilateral relationship between two countries. This list should be Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral_relations or emphasized that its a suggested list of standards, not required. Buy these standards, may US Relations pages don't meet the threshold, like San_Marino–United_States_relations or Madagascar–United_States_relations. No unique alliance. No significant trade. No disputes. No shared boarder. By the measure of these standards, these many Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States pages should be recommended for deletion. There is much bias towards US relations and discounting on the bilateral relations of other countries IMO. --BrotmeisterB (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. In fact I've just nominated the San Marino one for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 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 redirect to Dhanbad#Schools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar Dhanbad

Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar Dhanbad (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 references. Schools are not automatically notable, and there is no notability without independent references.

Infobox has too many redlinks. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there's no serious violations and any attempts to fix this can certainly be made without immediate deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 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 Draftify. MQS addresses the situation beautifully.

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Love Action Drama

Love Action Drama (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:NFF. Shooting starts only in August 2017, per the article's own admission. Other sources put the date at October. Jupitus Smart 04:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
    talk|c|em) 15:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Draftify or Keep and continue improvements since
    undeletion will simply occur in 3 or 4 weeks when filming is confirmed. Flat out deletion is not always the best answer. Ping me. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk|c|em) 18:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Draftifying should ideally serve some purpose. There is hardly any content in the article to merit saving in a draft, and this can be easily restarted as and when production begins. There are only 3 things out for now (which can also change) - Dhyan is directing it, and Nivin and Nayanthara are acting in it. The August 2017 start date has 6 references cited - though it is mentioned in none of them. Nivin (Nivin's Hey Jude has started production recently, so if the creator is watching this AfD, he may consider creating an article for it) and Nayanthara are currently flooded with movies, so there is no possibility of the movie starting production anytime soon. While [this is indeed a decent amount of references, most of it has to do with the news value associated with Dhyan making his directorial debut and Nivin and Nayanthara uniting for the first time. Also many of the references are from websites considered as unreliable per
WP:ICTFFAQ, and if this article stays for long, we will soon have one of these sites using Wikipedia to put the start date at August, and thereby start off a circular referencing. I therefore believe that the best solution should be to redirect it to Dhyan Sreenivasan, as he is the only person who has no possibility of changing, considering the movie is based on his story. Jupitus Smart 03:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 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, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSC Artur Music

BSC Artur 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)

Contested PROD. While the team exists, I can't find any in-depth coverage beyond brief match reports (searching in English, but searching with both "Music" and "Myuzik", as per the extant footnotes), which would suggest that notability doesn't yet extend to the constituent teams in this league. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Top European club, national champion, two-times runners-up of the Euro Winners Cup, top-level European club competition (analog of the Champions League in football). 185.59.158.22 (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of extant information about the Euro Winners Cup doesn't necessarily help in this regard either, to be honest. An analogue of the Champions League is not automatically a notable tournament just because that's what it says it is, if that makes sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Design Inc.

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

Article is written like a brochure. best to merge with Aricent. or no ground of significance as an encyclopedia. This article suits the purpose of company purpose from the way its written. Part of notable group/ investment firm like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. It does not mean we should make a directory or corporate profile here. Light2021 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frog design is a design firm of international recognition for many decades. If the article has issues, they should be dealt with by improving the article rather than deleting it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies
    WP:GNG handily; and merging into the current parent company's article does not make sense, given the history. Article has recently been edited into a more encyclopedic style. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:10, 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 redirect to Greensboro, Pennsylvania. And mention there at editors' discretion.  Sandstein  16:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation

AfDs for this article:
Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a local non-profit without any national media coverage. Fails

WP:NONPROFIT Rogermx (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:40, 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 05:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Greensboro, Pennsylvania. As far as I can make out, reading between the lines of this advert. This is a community organisation in a village of 300 people to promote its conservation, which it does by holding an arts festival. As such it is not independently notable. Sourcing is not everything. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the nomination. Promotional article for a local non-profit foundation. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for Redirect to a very brief (single sentence) mention at Greensboro, Pennsylvania, perhaps under subhead Greensboro, Pennsylvania#The industrial era and today, basing redirect on a handful of mentions in regional dailies dating to 2007-9, about a dispute over custody of some historic artifacts, a fundraiser... small potatoes stuff but plausibly enough for a redirect. However, the article as it stands is mere puffery for a small (very small) town charity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not established and largely unsourced
    WP:ADVOCACY. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 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. I appreciate Colapeninsula's comments; unfortunately, nobody else agreed with them. If you want the article userfied or moved to draft space pending improvement, drop me a line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gianfranco Zaccai

Gianfranco Zaccai (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)

Nonnotable. One Paragraph to write? Wikipedia is not Social Media Light2021 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ: Industrial designer Gianfranco Zaccai is lying in a hospital bed. What is this coverage?
bostonglobe : A Press coverage? Thats allLight2021 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? He meets
WP:NOTNEWS because of the continuing and in-depth nature of the coverage. Do you have a policy-based reason to assert he is not notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:39, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Ratnayake

Allen Ratnayake (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 references cited are merely mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They passed his name mentioning because they assume his notability. Simple question, why didn't they forget him? Lkartlv (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lkartlv - notability means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention or a mere mention in passing but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Dan arndt (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt, In fact I agree with your opinion. But my point is mere coverage should not take as the main factor for a judgement of notability of something. It is just a single factor that we can consider of. But we have to realize that coverage is depended on some other factors too. If I spend about 2000 LKRs I can be notable person tomorrow :) We have to think of how someone's work has affected to the human society, why people even pass mentioning their names. Lkartlv (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lkartlv this is why WP has certain standards of proof to establish notability. At this stage there isn't enough evidence provided that meets those standards. Dan arndt (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For a reliable source to identify him as "one of the giants" carries some weight for a person active before the Internet. Dan Arndt, you described the
general notability guidelines, not the entirety of what is held to constitute notability on Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Lkartlv, I regret to see such a comment by a wikipedian that does not make any sense. Lkartlv (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hereby would like to mention my suggestions in brief.
1. The name 'Allen Ratnayake' is referred for a musical artist from Sri Lanka.
2. Many soundtracks recorded with his voice can be found online and Radio channels like Sri lanka broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) are broadcasting his songs as categorized as Sinhala Gramophone songs.
3. I have given some reliable sources to prove that the information in the article is true and correct.
4. One of the given sources has been challenged for its reliability. (Infolanka.com / Miyuru Gee)
5. There are three other sources can be found. The source which mentions the words "one of the giants" had originally been published in 2002. It can be verified by checking its date label and the url (http://archives.dailynews.lk/2002/09/09/fea10.html). The publisher is The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd (Daily News, Sri Lanka). The other source had been published in 1998 by Sunday Times, sri Lanka. The words "one of the giants" are not mentioned within that source (http://www.sundaytimes.lk/980104/plus6.html). The third source is Free Music Archive which is credited as an 'an interactive library of high-quality' on this wikipedia. I ask Largoplazo, do you seriously believe that some one had created those sources to carry some weight for a person active before the Internet? Lkartlv (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you asking whether I believe something I never said or implied that I believed? Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largoplazo, Well, you've commented above that "For a reliable source to identify him as "one of the giants" carries some weight for a person active before the Internet". I'm asking you, is that as you believe it or an empty-headed lion talk that has nothing to do with this discussion? Please answer. Did you remove a section from this article titled "See also" under which three other articles published on this very Wikipedia (not external links) of some common categories were listed? if yes, why? Was it a destructive edit that carried some weight for a person active before the internet? Lkartlv (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about "one of the giants" was the one thing I wrote that's in your favor, and now you're challenging me on it, which makes no sense. I also did not remove the See Also section, which the article's history confirms. Largoplazo (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 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.  Sandstein  08:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boutir

Boutir (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)

Promotional spam.Nil notability. Winged Blades Godric 06:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Non-english sources are acceptable for establishing notability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please post links to what you consider to be the significant coverage in reliable sources.
      -- HighKing++ 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
[40] ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references in the article are either produced by the company or are announcements relating to funding. Fails
    -- HighKing++ 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources can be found. The South China Morning Post article is a good start but everything else that I can read fails
    WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 18:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete as per User:Shoy. The Apple Daily article is only a paragraph. Matt's talk 08:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an advertorial for an insignificant company. Insufficient reliable, independent sourcing. Basically spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 28 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. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest gaps between studio albums

List of longest gaps between studio albums (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)

Reeks of

original research... note the lack of references. And it is eye-wateringly trivial. TheLongTone (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: hardly definitive either... in the last 12 months alone, both the Avalanches and Chuck Berry would need to be added to this list. Richard3120 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This could be a great list, but it lacks focus. It's def. a notable concept with real-world notability - here's some sources [44], [45], [46]. But it needs a clear set of inclusion criteria (maybe 10 years?), or limit it to the top 50/100 gaps? There could be literally hundreds, if not thousands of bands with "big" gaps between albums. Off the top of my head, there's sixteen years between Swans releasing Soundtracks for the Blind, breaking up, reforming and then releasing My Father Will Guide Me up a Rope to the Sky. And it's already been 11 years since Tool did 10,000 Days. I'm still waiting for the follow-up. Grrrrrr. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lugnuts - the list could be a useful one, but very difficult to implement without some inclusion criteria. How do we know, or will we find out, if there are African or Asian artists that have had a gap of more than ten years between albums, especially if they're obscure and don't have their own Wikipedia articles? Even if you limit it to Western musicians, there are many that could fall though the gaps if you only think along the lines of rock or pop acts (e.g. Vashti Bunyan).
I'm never comfortable with lists like this being on Wikipedia because it's hard to be definitive about them. Still, that's not a reason for including them, and as Sergecross73 says, subjectivity is not the issue (unlike the big problems with List of best-selling girl groups, which I've given up trying to police). Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALBUMS is moderately active as a WikiProject too, so I imagine we could get input from there if issues arise. Sources do cover this sort of thing, and I'm good at inclusion criteria setup/enforcement, so it seems possible. Even if its deleted, not very much work was put into this list, and its not the type of chart I'd set up for it, so unless consensus is this article should never exist in any capacity, I may start up a draft of a more policy/guideline compliant version anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It needs sources to start with, and I think the basic inclusion criteria would be 10 years+ and both the band/artist and the albums would need existing wiki articles. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that. I'm also not sure about the whole year/month/days format - it could get hard source things down to the day, especially considering we're going to be talking about albums initially released long ago. And for album's without release dates, (like Tool's situation) that are merely going "to present", it would require constant updating. (Every day you'd have to add one more day on.) Unless we didn't add artists who still haven't released the follow up album (like Tool), though, that'd be a shame, as that sort of thing gets a lot of coverage too. There's some kinks to be worked out, for sure, but I think its do-able from a practical and Wikipedia policy standpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised the list doesn't yet include the whole Chinese Democracy debacle, which you would have thought would be the first thing that springs to mind when compiling a list like this... Richard3120 (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the article seems to suffer a case of
    WP:NOTDUP but the topic seems meritable with a clear inclusion criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think... I'm going for keep on this one... sources should not be difficult to obtain (when an artist releases their first album in more than a decade, it tends to get a lot of press), but as
    Pixies and TLC spring to mind). One other point I wanted to raise: would you include someone like Barry Gibb, whose two solo albums are 32 years apart but who obviously released a few studio albums in the intervening years with a certain other group? Richard3120 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Sergecross73: just to say I can certainly find RS that state "Barry Gibbs' first solo album in 32 years" - [47], [48]. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, yeah, and Billboard no less. Yeah, I'd include that, unless the inclusion criteria talks go in a different direction that I anticipate... Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nearly forgot about this (and to actually !vote too...) Keep as long as the inclusion criteria for the band/artist and time-gap are set out. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Conceptually, it meets Wikipedia's requirement's for a list. I was hesitant to say "keep" because this particular iteration is so poorly done - I'd do it entirely different in the ways of formatting, entries, sources, etc. Not sure if it'd be easier to just start from scratch. But I do intend on making such an article, and will develop inclusion criteria. So I may as well say keep. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 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. I'll bet a pound to a pickle that the arguments about

WP:CORPDEPTH have gone unrebutted and carry the discussion. A Traintalk 08:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Brand Attic

Brand Attic (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)

Unremarkable organisation. -Claim of notability thinner than a pink Rizla, and a dollar to a donut the daily mail references are the result of active PR hacks. TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Featured in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail? One presumes they made some 14-year old daughter-of-a-celeb look "leggy" and "all-grown-up" therefore attracting salivating coverage from these unreliable sources. If this really is the best that can be produced to show notability, there's a very, very long way to go. Mabalu (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes
    WP:GNG by coverage in major UK newspapers. Daily Mail is discredited as a source of personal information but not about anything else. Also, please drop the wacky prose guys, this isn't creative writing class. (Dollar a to a donut? All-grown-up? Urgh!) Manc1234 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Don't be so stuck up.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socorro Santiago

Socorro Santiago (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 10-year old article with no sources, and just one "external link" - the "always reliable" IMDb. The content of the article is a list of credits, which is preceded by one sentence. That one sentence explicitly states "has made occasional appearances". This article hardly meets notability requirements. Kellymoat (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 13 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, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the improvements there's a clear case of notability.
    talk) 04:12, 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) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Damey

Emile Damey (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 fails

WP:NFOOTY. Has not played for Liberia in an official match as the game between Liberia and Morocco occurred on the same day that Morocco played against Albania in an official friendly. The match between Liberia and Morocco on 31 August 2016 was effectively an unofficial match against the Moroccan B team. Simione001 (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 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.  Sandstein  08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Maria Goretti Church, Laflin, Pennsylvania

St. Maria Goretti Church, Laflin, Pennsylvania (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 notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran some searches, including news archive searches with keywords. A news archive search on "St. Maria Goretti Church" + Laflin produced hundreds of articles, scanning the first few pages there was nothing except funerals, weddings, holiday pageants, fund raisers - thoroughly routine. Flag me if anyone can source it, but all I can see is a nice, normal parish church. Also struck out at gBooks [49].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with some regret) Delete as a NN local church. Since it gives the history of the church, this article is better than some, but still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 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) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistic nationalism

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

Subject is not covered significantly as a unified subject in reliable sources outside of mirrors. Results are mirrors and text where someone mentions in passing that a brand of nationalism is in an atheistic way. I prefer deletion, but I'm open to a merge if there is a suitable target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first glance, it seems it does not have any good sources to deserve an article. I will try to look for more sources, but as it is it barely has any encyclopedic value. Ebacci EN (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only because as Nom states, the term is not in significant use as a term of art, but because in a quick search, where these two word ane used in conjunction in phrases like "All forms of pagan or atheistic nationalism are demonic", "should penetrate beyond the shell of secular atheistic nationalism into the divine spark at the core of...", or "It is fashionable to ascribe the horrors of Nazism to an atheistic nationalism", there are simple 2 words that convey a meaning, but not a defined ideology. The exception to this is with regard to Soviet Russia. There I did see what seems like use of this phrase as a sort of term of art:"they sought to supplant religious faith with a new religion—atheistic nationalism—making this, and not the Russian Orthodox Church,the focal point for...", but I did not find enough such uses to persuade me that it is a commonly used or notable term of art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. P (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The two cases quoted were part of a totalitarian effort to control everything, including religion. Nationalism was merely a means of focusing this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - seems to be a
    WP:OR. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:22, 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 and redirect to Robert J. Groden.  Sandstein  08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Killing of a President

The Killing of a President (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)

Conspiracy book fails

Location (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I am OK with a redirect to
Location (talk) 15:22, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Collins (ice hockey forward, born 1983)

AfDs for this article:
Sean Collins (ice hockey forward, born 1983) (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 hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 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. Ravenswing's analysis of the sources went undisputed and new sources were not mentioned. SoWhy 17:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsewang Gyaltson

AfDs for this article:
Tsewang Gyaltson (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 hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - fails
    WP:NHOCKEY, but passes GNG as per sources in the first AFD. Just needs improvement. Madg2011 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 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) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jargalsaikhany Bayarsaikhan

Jargalsaikhany Bayarsaikhan (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)

Lacks GNG to justify an article. Has won a continental level medal in Bandy... but does that make them notable? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 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) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SendMeRSS

SendMeRSS (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)

References consist of links to the gateway creator's website or other blog sites and do not appear to come from reliable independent verifiable published sources with any editorial oversight. Looks to have been heavily edited by the gateway's creator without a COI declaration. KDS4444 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to provide in depth sources, and most of the coverage (per nom's point) are questionable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_July_20&oldid=1142618625"