Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 1

Assassinorum: Execution Force

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

No evidence of any notability for this. No references, and all searches reveal only sales sites and niche market reviews. Nothing independent and nothing robust. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (well, smerge) to Warhammer 40,000#Spin-offs and related fiction (and, as an aside, I'd subdivide that section). 40K is a huge franchise with 30 years of a history. In addition to the core miniature wargame, there are about eleventy-seven spin-off games and standalone products set in the same universe. This is one of them. It has... dubious available sources on its own merits, but deserves at least inclusion in the embedded list of related products in the parent article. For what it's worth, there are at least a couple sources that are absolutely "niche" reviews, but that claim to have some form of editorial control. Places like Bell of Lost Souls, The Dice Tower, and Diehard GameFan (here reviewing the novelization of this game... because rabbit holes are for going down). No, these aren't the sort of "high quality" sources that get you a passing grade at FAC, but there's no reason they shouldn't suffice for inclusion of a line or two of information about this product (and the spinoff spinoff book!) in a wider-topic article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty non-notable one-off boxed game by GW, and the article reads like a bad copy/paste from the GW advert for it.194.28.127.55 (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge as per Squeamish Ossifrage. BOZ (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer 40,000. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Fawn

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

Fails pornbio with just nominations and the gng because the two rs in the references are not about her and she is just mentioned, once in each. Further this is a blp vio given unsourced claim of rl identity.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete – no RS beyond passing mentions; fails
WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO as per nom. — Quasar G. 22:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District 102. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aptakisic Junior High School

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

This Wikipedia article simply lacks notable content. Most junior highs are not deemed notable, and this junior high is no different. Much of the content could have been formatted better (see 'About the School' especially). Of course, this alone could be changed, but much of the content looks as though it were just taken from the school site. There are only four sources, and a lot of uncited information. I am not an exclusionist, and do not generally want to terminate articles on the rationale of notability, but I cannot see how this article is warranted. HarryOtter (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school is a valued part of its local community, and it would be a shame to see it go. There are numerous articles on this site which may not have the citations on them to warrant notability, but this does not mean they are not notable; it simply means that they need to be "dressed up a bit." This article may be poorly made, but that means it should be improved rather than killed. Simply because the reliable sources and notable information do not lie on this corner of the internet does not necessarily mean that the topic matter is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article; rather, it means that these missing sources should be sought out. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to go through this process after it is clear that the topic matter is not notable, but currently, the faults lie mainly within the article. Only after a search for notability should Aptakisic be brought to the chopping block. Mysterymanblue (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You vote, Mysterymanblue looks more like 'I like it' rather than founded on our criteria for notability. I note that you are very new here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment on the significance to the local community was less of an argument for keeping the article and more of a lament that it might go, though I have no direct ties to the school in any way, shape, or form. The real argument I pose is rooted in

Wikipedia:NEXIST rather than in any sort of sentimental connection to either the article or the school. I am not sure what exactly you are insinuating by noting the age of this account, about three years, but, I can assure you, my comments were both wholehearted and genuine. Mysterymanblue (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

There have been tags on this article for a while and it appears nobody has found anything more notable now. We cannot keep articles on Wikipedia in hopes that they will one day have sources and more content. Would you be open to a redirect to the district page and a section on the school? HarryOtter (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logistically speaking, it seems like augmenting the district page with the content from this article would cause it to be a bit lopsided, especially considering the lack of content on Wikipedia about the other educational institutions appertaining to the district. Mysterymanblue (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well more content could be added. I don't think that would be a big issue. HarryOtter (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced material to Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District 102: We have that article, which can have sections for each school. I'm not convinced that a 2-year school is separately notable from the 4-school district it's in. Every school "is a valued part of its local community"; that doesn't make it separately meet Wikipedia:Notability. --Closeapple (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Should we add
Earl Pritchett School to this discussion also? It's a K-4 school in the same district. --Closeapple (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the school district as per standard accepted treatment for this kind of article. Closer: Redirects are blanked and not deleted. The {{R from school}} template should be added to the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect merge any notable encyclopedic content to school district and redirect.--
WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect of course to Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District 102 as per standard procedure for non notable schools. Closer: please remember to blank rather than delete, and to add the 'R from school' template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we do not generally have articles on non diploma granting schools and I see no reason this should be an exception. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Hermann Zimmer

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

There are only two references given 1 is another Wikipedia article and 2nd reference is his own publication Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A35821361 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current state of the article, appears to meet basic notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:HEY appears to apply. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Polandball

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

I'm just bringing this here because... it's so freaking big I don't know if anyone is going to actually accept a PROD. Basically the most blatant violation of

TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Speedy Delete I think this meets
talk) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

TimothyJosephWood 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

This article is too stupid to argue about. One way or another, it will be gone soon.

talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete – nice to look at, but is completely unnecessary and fails
Power~enwiki, not sure this meets A11 as it actually is a thing. — Quasar G. 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Much as I'd love something like "I like it" to be a valid reason to keep something, comments above are completely correct. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary internets cruft; no authority, hence
talk) 01:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Needs more authoritive referencing - random internet thing? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's meme-cruft GretLomborg (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but transwiki to Commons. Unsourced
WP:NOTGALLERY. But it is worth noting that it could be transwikified to Commons, where it could exist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is
WP:NOTGALLERY. Ajf773 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - As to transwiki...ing ... (insert words) this pretty much already exists at
TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

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

I don't think this essay is notable enough for a standalone. I checked American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, and while Hofstader appears in the pages cited, it is a different essay about Pseudoconservatism - the essay that is the subject of this article only appears in footnotes. Surely, we are not going to create stand alone articles for every cited paper in a secondary source. I don't think there is enough to establish independent notability for an academic paper. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; easily passes the notability guideline. Consider this New York Times piece alone. It's a very famous essay; maybe not as widely known as Hofstadter's
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written around the same time, but related to it. Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - passes General Notability Guidelines Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - and mulloy does specifically reference the book and essay - for example on page 27: "After all, once you know what you're looking for it's easier to categorize subsequent groups, and with this template firmly in place the paranoid style has been regularly applied to whatever far-right groups have subsequently emerged in the United States, often with little regard for the specific circumstances of their emergence or the specific nature of their aims and ideas. As noted at the outset of the chapter, many observers considered thai the New Right and the New Christian Right could be understood by reference to the paranoid style (despite the fact that both were composed of various groups with differing interests and aims), and the disparate elements of the Patriot movement have been categorized by the same analytical token. It is an approach which has been particularly evident in respect of the militia movement, with academics, journalists, "watchdog" agencies, and others readily finding the paranoid style to be at work. Indeed, the extensive and widespread application of Hofstadter's thesis suggests that it has emerged from the Academy to become a stable, if often unexamined, part of American political and cultural discourse. Kenneth Stern speaks for many, it seems, when he argues: 'The political historian Richard Hofstadter, writing in 1965, explained the basic ideological premises that empower America's private armies of the 1990s.' " Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there is a NY Times opinion piece that

WP:GNG on its own, and a passage that has the word "paranoid" in it, but does not actually mention this essay by name (because it is talking about his other article Pseudoconservatism) - so synth and an opinion piece. That is a good summary of why I nominated for AfD. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Umm, by ignoring other commentaries? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. An important essay in American political thought. Why people nominate articles like this for deletion remains an eternal mystery. — goethean 22:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly influential work, oft cited and discussed (see e.g. the gBooks and gScholar links above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is easily one of Hofstader's most famous works and is clearly encyclopedic. A Google Books search gives me 41 pages of hits and a Google scholar search shows that not only is the original paper and book cited 500+ times, many other papers and scholarly works which seem to directly reference the work are also cited hundreds of times. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable and influential essay cited and/or referenced by academics and other authors in a variety of fields and media. -
Location (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Underwood

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

A collection of minor credentials; played basketball at the University of Maine, won Miss Maine USA, appeared on Survivor. None of them are sufficient for notability individually. I don't see how the combination makes her a public figure.

talk) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of people whose only claims for notability are winning a state-level beauty pageant and appearing on Survivor:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashley Underwood. I see multiple non-trivial sources covering her in-depth.--TM 23:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the pageant they won where you find their name on a list. This is the standard way we usually handle these very minor celebs. Complies with
WP:MODEL which covers these cases. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect all - clearly they don't meet
WP:NMODEL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't believe these are redirect candidates, as there's no way to tell whether to redirect to the beauty pageant or the Survivor season.
talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

then it needs to be delete because two minor entertainment gigs does not = meeting
WP:NACTOR Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect all -- insignificant achievements in other areas to warrant stand-alone articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: The
Janu Tornell participated on Survivor and "won" Miss Nevada USA 1989. Redirect to that article. Otr500 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect all: to pages suggested above. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Rebels

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

Does not appear to be a notable music label; a search for coverage in reliable sources found only one promotional shoutout from a media partner. Other hits included false positives for an unrelated music event in Singapore, or for unremarkable music groups with the same name. The claims that its music has been used by the likes of BBC and Channel 4 are only sourced to the label's pages, and not by independent sources.

csdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

csd new 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, completely unreferenced, and promotional. --Lockley (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not
Notable MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Well

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

Imo a promotional article about a book for which the sources are entirely inadequate for the establishment of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere PROMO. No SIGCOV found in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviews not from reliable sources. Best it's got is this blurb czar 18:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Dus (unfinished film)

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

Fails

WP:NFILM plus significance cannot be found. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mukul S. Anand: Though this wasn't ever completed, let alone released, the film has received some coverage for being the director's last film. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of unfinished or unreleased film articles on here with much less info than there is available for this film. Therefore I think this article should be kept as it was much talked about at the time of its production and is still remembered today for its soundtrack. Shakirfan (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kailash Surendranath. With no opposition to the redirect suggestion post two relistings, I am bent to close this Afd as per Skr's redirect suggestion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Hamesha

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

According to IMDB This film hasn't released. Since there is even no source to claim the release in 2001 as it was of 1999? Deletion needed. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director
May Madham, the film it was a remake of. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Einstein's Chair

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

Fails GNG/CRUFT. Just because a notable person sat in a chair a few times doesn't necessarily make it notable. South Nashua (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Merge into Leiden Observatory as already suggested. The chair has enough historical interest for a mention, but not for an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Worth a mention, not worth an article.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge into Leiden Observatory where the structure is currently located. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: into Leiden Observatory. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It must be
not hit this dead horse too many times. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sajit Poudel

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support

talk|c|em) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

The Strong Delete (TSD). Cannot find anything about this person that isn't self-created, self-published or self-promoted. While they seem to have marked their territory on EVERY single networking and profile site out there on Google, there's nothing independently written and published about them at all out there. Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no notability for the subject. Primary sources do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. Off all the names he could have called himself, he chose to just add 'The' to his name. Bah. Jupitus Smart 17:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putnis

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

Unreferenced and not notable. Searching turns up very little. Fails GNG. MB 17:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

I couldn't find anything. Maybe some editors from the subcontinent can shed light, searching in other languages.
talk) 17:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable and completely referenced. A quick google search produced no results relating to this (only unrelated names). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. I also cannot find any reference to this dish. I tried going at it sideways, by searching a reference in the Udupi cuisine article. Nothing came up from that Udupi recipe site. Nothing came up in the other searches I tried. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete gbooks also only shows this as a surname . Unless someone finds foreign language coverage it falls WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Veterans of War

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

WP:TOOSOON. No notable pro wrestling tag team. It was created just a few months ago HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only coverage is in-universe promotion.
talk) 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A quick and gentle suggestion to

AFDOUTCOMES before nominating other articles. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Imperial Theatres

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

This article has been created a long time ago without having any references. Diako ^{« Talk »} 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well the redirect was created long ago and the article today. It needs references but ....PRehse (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

which states clubs are notable if they play in a national competition (and therefore aren't if they dont) is just an essay. Whilst it is an essay regularly cited in individual deletion discussions, I don't think it is appropriate to use here across such a wide number of clubs.

Keep - You found something in Category:1732 establishments and you decided today that it is not notable? Seriously? Go and find sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my duty to find sources for other articles. The creator of an article must provide sources for it. Diako ^{« Talk »} 07:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sufficient mentions in Google books to indicate notability of this topic. The subject has a well developed ru.wiki article as well: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it is not notable. I nominated it for deletion, because it does not have any sources and the creator of the article has not even made an effort to mention sources for it since 2009. Diako ^{« Talk »} 07:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Then this is a waste of time.
talk) 01:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close. There is no subject specific guideline around club notability.

WP:FOOTYN

Moreover, this is ultimately a question about GNG and I don't see how a reasoned discussion can be held on so many clubs in one go as there is no clear thread indicating they are all non notable.

This closure does not suggest notability for any of these clubs and any editor should feel they can renominate individually if they feel a club fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Stormers FC

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

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 2

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 5

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 3

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 6

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 6

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 5

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 5

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 6

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 3

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

Centenary Stormers FC doesn't meet the requirements of

WP:FPL) - these clubs aren't among them. Cabayi (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The premise of this AfD is wrong: per the policy the nominator just cited and I quote, "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." This is not a presumption of non-notability: it means there needs to be a discussion about the individual notability of those clubs based on the available sources, which you cannot possibly have in a group nomination of 33 different clubs. Incidentally, the nominator doesn't even try to make the case that they don't pass
WP:GNG (as the guideline states) - "best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4" is not a reason for deletion. The nominator should individually relist any clubs he wants to make an actual case for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The Drover's Wife summed up my thoughts nicely, but I shall also add that clubs such as Grange Thistle actually competed on a national stage in the NSL Cup back in the day. A lot of these clubs played in the Brisbane Premier League at some point, and were at the second highest flight (or equal top flight prior to 1977) of Australian football. - J man708 (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL and it's current status on the 3rd tier of Australian soccer league system doesn't endow notability on its participants. Cabayi (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep - My views concur with those stated above by The Drover's Wife and J man708. In addition, three of these clubs have competed in the Australia Cup (national cup competition 1962-1968) - Bardon Latrobe (as Latrobe), Eastern Suburbs (as Merton Rovers) and Oxley United (as itself). Akttns (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akttns, I purposely didn't nominate Oxley United FC because of its participation in the Australia Cup. Neither Eastern Suburbs FC nor Bardon Latrobe FC make any mention of the Australia Cup. If you'd like to add the detail, with source, I'll happily withdraw the nomination for those two. Cabayi (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Without making comments either way on notability, there isn't any way to pull apart so many different cases in one single discussion. I wouldn't oppose some of the lower hanging fruit being nominated in individual discussions, and if those result in "Delete" we can work our way up the tree. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural Keep. for some at least, the articles pre-date the introduction of the FFA Cup (and its preliminary rounds) - such as Kangaroo Point Rovers FC - so for an article that's been on Wikipedia since 2010, how has the notability decreased by introduction of a particular Cup in 2014 to be used as the ?sole criteria for inclusion ? I also agree with the comments above from The Drover's Wife and J man708 in this regard. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayamohithachandran

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

Possibly shelved movie. No indication that the movie completed its shooting. Was supposed to release in 2003, and the last news that I could find about the movie was from 2005, when a source mentioned that the movie has not released yet. For some strange reason the article was made only about a month ago. Anyway fails

WP:NFF. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:CBALL. FITINDIA 15:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per FITINDIA. There's not even enough on this movie to know anything about the plot, either. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buses in Sydney. Given the redirect suggestion by Pepper (seconded by Aoziwe), and given that there's no evident opposition to the redirect suggestions, I'm closing this Afd as a redirect. Yet, if the nominator or other delete !voters wish the article to be deleted rather than be redirected, feel free to request me on my talk page to reverse the close. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Buses routes

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

Not an appropriate

notable subject. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per
WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --Lockley (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buses in Sydney, whose lead section directs users to articles about the type of bus routes they are looking for (these articles already exist). "Pepper" @ 01:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best, to Buses in Sydney. Not a directory, list cruft . . Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Icelandic Expedition

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

Absolutely no sources to indicate significance or importance. Search reveals no coverage by

reliable sources either. Coderzombie (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

(talk) 14:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. Searching is somewhat complicated by the existence of a very different British-Icelandic Expedition to Vatnajökull (in 1977, to perform radio echo surveys of subglacial geography), and potentially a third such event in 1981. The 1989 event that is the current article topic is essentially nonexistent in reliable sources. I don't think there's any benefit to conserving the title for the 1977 expedition, either. This Journal of Glaciology article isn't sufficient by far to demonstrate notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Even though there are some sources in Icelandic for an British-Icelandic Expeditions to Vatnajökull, they are not enough for GNG. Focusing only on Icelandic news published in the same years as the expeditions themselves, two Icelandic sources are about the 1977 expedition and one about the 1989 expedition that the article is about. The 1989 source even contains so little information that it adds nothing to the article.--
talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete until we can find a solid source, this cannot stay. With a weak source, a good alternative would be to redirect to Vatnajökull. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge in Vatnajökull — If sources can be found for an entry in Vatnajökull. —Paleo Neonate - 17:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GLOBOsapiens

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

The word GLOBOsapiens is used by various bodies, which makes searching a bit trickier. I can find mentions of their website but no discussion. The article was created by a member. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- advocacy & unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Rogue Twitter accounts