Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 19

Delete. Not notable and even if it was, the article would have to be
started over. Rentier (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:29, 27 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 Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). Hatnotes can be handled as required later So Why 09:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

River Oceanus

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a fictional location with no out-of-universe notability demonstrated (nor likely).
talk) 02:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessively detailed fancruft about a fictional location. Poorly sourced and no indication of real-world notability. Unlikely that merging any of this stuff to another article would improve anything. Reyk _YO! 14:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short paragraph into the relevant section Plane (Dungeons & Dragons), and probably retarget to Oceanus (the Greek personification of the world river, which would have often been called the River Oceanus), and hatnote if merged. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. As noted by Patar Knight, this appears to be an in popular culture instantiation of a real mythological feature: [1]. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per BOZ. Nothing suggests independent notability. Suggesting it is notable because it is inspired by some real mythology, is, well, pathetic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 25 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 Dark Sun. So Why 09:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World of Dark Sun

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd theoretically support a merge to
talk) 02:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as there are a few independent sources there, or merge to Dark Sun. BOZ (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Dark Sun. This is a good example that merging stuff into 'fictional universe of' articles is ultimately futile if the said fictional universe is not notable anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 23 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. So Why 10:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Frelinghuysen Talmage

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

Completing an incomplete AfD process: see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Completion of process. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete No actual sign of notability. Seems to have been someone's family genealogy project. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple solid biographical references including Cleave's Biographical Cyclopædia and an obituary in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple solid biographical references prove that he existed. None of them show that he met any of the
WP:GNG criteria.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not a shred of notability, sources or not.
talk
)

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

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

The result was delete. clear enough consensus despite limited participation. No objection to restoring to draft space if someone can find additional sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skitting

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

This has been unverified for the longest time, and for good reason: it does not seem to have generated the kind of coverage to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing but a couple of videos. Didn't pick up.
talk) 00:42, 22 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) 22:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Bawab

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and a CEO of non-notable marketing agency. Significant RS coverage that discuss the subject directly and in detail not found. What comes up is PR-driven or otherwise not independent of the topic. Created as a paid article, according to the disclosures on User:Renzoy16 page. I don’t have a philosophical disagreement with paid editing, but in this case, the article is on a non-notable individual and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG as none of the sources in the article or which I have found are truly independent --Hazarasp (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Ridiculously self promotional. Light2021 (talk) 11:03, 24 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) 22:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maleeka R Ghai

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR guideline. Simply appearing in some television movies and soap operas does not qualify. May also qualify as G4, as had been deleted already but was non-admin closure prior to any debate. Bri (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Per
WP:NACTOR. Comatmebro (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 22 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 withdraw by nominator. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William W. "Bill" Carmody

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

I found no significant coverage for this priest per

WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has approved this article significantly while the AfD nomination was going on. I'm satisfied with with the article and I would like to withdraw this, but I don't know how to close it. SL93 (talk) 05:29, 21 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) 22:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koki Matsuzawa

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 17:46, 26 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) 22:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Swirad

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 17:45, 26 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. So Why 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe the Dog

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

Orphaned article about a meme that doesn't have much context and doesn't have any sources whatsoever. Do we really need this? XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 16:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete references have been added since the listing, but they don't establish notability. If the dogs owner or "Arf" [2] had a page, it might be a redirect candidate.
talk) 21:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 27 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) 22:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Endeacott

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

Contested PROD by author. Laun chba ller 17:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails

WP:AUTHOR in that although he appears to have written a couple of books they are not notable works and he has received no notable independent coverage outside run of mill book reviews. No other claim to notability ClubOranje^T 03:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - no reliable independent sources Spiderone 20:22, 23 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. limited participation, but the result is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Muñoz

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

Doesn't meet

WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 03:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Fails
WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:48, 23 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) 22:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Dayton

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

No independent evidence of notability. This was BLPPROD'd, and the BLPPROD was removed, replaced with three references, but two of the references are to Wikipedia, and one is a genealogical entry. Google search shows nothing but the usual vanity hits, an obituary of someone else with the same name, and an unreferenced article for him in the Spanish Wikipedia (whose standards are different). This appears to be identical to the Spanish entry, but that doesn't establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have a few minor roles in notable films, but no major roles. Without more credible references, he's not notable.
talk) 20:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Sources include a genealogy website and that's it. Nothing suggests he meets
WP:CREATIVE or such. With the sourcing/content provided, not notable for encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:29, 19 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. Editors are free to create a disambiguation page with entries such as the ones suggested in the discussion. Sandstein 18:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International version

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

I created this article years ago based on the mistaken idea that the term "international version" was a commonly used term for re-releases of video games. In retrospect, I think Squaresoft/Square-Enix is really the only company that calls their re-releases "international versions" (e.g. Final Fantasy VII International, Final Fantasy X International). Other companies tend to use other names such as "director's cut", expanded editions or 完全版 (kanzenban). At any rate, "international version" is more commonly used to refer to a widely released version of a product as opposed to a localized version (e.g. the international cut of a movie as opposed to an American cut). I considered various possibilities for improving it and I think we're better off just deleting it or merging it to some other article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not a notable topic. Video games companies often re-release games with added features with many different product names (although I note there's also an article special edition, it needs work and more references). The article currently has no references, and although the title gets lots of hits, few use the phrase to refer to a general concept: most are either about a specific game or just use the phrase in passing. It's a common enough conjunction of adjective and noun, but I think it's just too vague as an article subject. There are many candidates for redirect, e.g. Internationalization and localization, which refers to adapting software for overseas; special edition, as mentioned; New International Version, a Bible translation; or could even make it an index to articles like International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?; but none is especially compelling. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs a lot of work from an experienced writer, but the topic is valid. I suspect that many of the sources that should be used will not be in English, since as discussed, an international release is a modification of something that has limited scope due to language/frame rate/etc. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met by this topic. The phrase "International version" would need to be the subject of "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" - that's for the phrase itself, not a few international versions of software products. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Dab with above recommended targets. (Delete & dab is also fine too.) The concept is not independently notable as borne out in the sourcing, but it can be used as a search term to point readers in the right direction (existing articles). czar 07:09, 20 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Rally Hebrides

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

This is routine promotional coverage of a non-competitive racing exhibition. It has only local media coverage. Fails

WP:EVENT. Rogermx (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. no evidenceor references to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 27 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) - TheMagnificentist 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Bhale Mogudu Bhale Pellam

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

Foreign language film of questionable notability (

WP:NFILM). When this film was accepted, it was noted that references demonstrating notability of this film. Creator of this page removed the notability concern banner without fixing the problem. Page was prodded citing Foreign film of questionable notability to English language wikipedia unsupported by current references. Was deprodded citing deprod- foreign films are encouraged, has refs. Article consists of a plot synopsis and cast list. References either assert that it the film exists or database listing of the cast/crew. Neither of these categories provide the necessary support for this film. There's no reason why there can't be a Telugu language version of the page (as presumably there's reviews for it), however in English wikipedia we need some references that back up the assertions and raise this beyond a IMDB level of content. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Weak keep Telugu language reviews are acceptable for
WP:GNG, here are 2 English reviews here at 123telegu.com and here at an archive of cinegoer.com but not sure if they are reliable sources as the RS Noticeboard hasn't mentioned them. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Cinegoer is a deadlink, so we discard that in consideration for RS (though it could have been a marginal as a deadlink when we had other RS attesting to the content of the dead link). As to 123telugu, it does not appear to be a professional site (their contact email is [email protected]), nor does it read like a critical coverage, but a hobyist/blogger giving their viewpoint. Reviewer is not listed so there could be a conflict of interest in the writing (either for or against the movie), and the review itself indicates that it's a disapointment of a movie. For these reasons, I don't think the notability of the film is given, and in light of the proffered "RS" I'm inclined to think this will never (as we're already 5 years past the film's release) exceed the threshold of notability for inclusion in the English wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting
WP:NTEMP. Needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep Nom should have exercised due diligence; this is also a possible case of WP:BIAS -- often foreign-lang films don't get enuf recognition film when there is a wealth of Indian sources (or any other foreign sources for that matter) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources covering a non-western film NEVER have to be "western sources" only.
WP:COMMONSENSE anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:54, 25 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) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hurst (British actor)

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are single line mentions or listings. reddogsix (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Favonian (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Article relies so heavily on primary sources that if I were to remove them, there'd be nothing left. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete -- does not meet
WP:PROMO applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 21 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. The entire unsourced content by Balajirajuchen was, if anybody wants to reuse it: "Lime rice and lemon rice are related dishes from the cuisine of South India, in which rice is steamed with lime or lemon juice, or fried in a mixture that includes lime or lemon, along with other spices." Sandstein 07:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lime rice

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fried rice#India. No mention of the subject there, but that'd only take about 10 seconds to sort. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:NOTACOOKBOOK, no redirect beacuse lime rice is often just boiled with the lime/lemon juice, not necessarily subsequently fried. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into
Cuisine of South India – Clearly not enough to stand as its own article. Should be covered in its regional context. Ibadibam (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 22:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Non-notable by itself, and no evidence of notability provided YouTooNow (talk) 07:24, 20 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. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon FL 85-300mm lens

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

Non-notable per

WP:N. The creator removed a prod in 2009. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence does not equal notability, and there seems to be no coverage of this lens to prove it is somehow notable. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canon FL lens mount. It's not a well-known or historic lens with no claim to stand out of the ordinary, and doesn't appear to be covered in reliable sources, just in databases, lists, sales, forums, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced prose on an unremarkable accessory. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Light2021 (talk) 19:18, 25 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. So Why 10:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Colwell

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

Fails

WP:ARTIST. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - It's also an autobiography. Why do people still make their WP name the same name are the article they are creating? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 21:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much Apologies for making the page an Autobiography. The reason as to why I put myself on Wikipedia is due to the positive impact I have made on my hometown and community, and the importance in Radio I hold in Perry County, Kentucky. I feel as though the article should stand, due to myself having a credible source for the article Here, but I'm still new to Wikipedia and want to know what I can change about the article to make sure that it can stay on the site. Any help is appreciated! (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. If the subject becomes more clearly established as notable, the page can be restored to the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks significant coverage in RS does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self promotion. Lacks significant independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is not a webhost, I would say not to userfy.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The biography needs more notice from a wider field of publications than just the local paper. This seems to me to have purely local interest, with little chance of becoming regional or national. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much apologies once again. I was unaware that the biography needed more sources than a local newspaper. I also have my celebrity interviews as references on the page, but I did not know that you also need regional or national nobility. However, I do believe one day, that I will break out into Regional Or National Nobility. (talk) 02:34, 22 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. Sandstein 07:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack

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

A van crashing into a police car is not notable.

I tagged a different article on this subject for deletion, but it was 'merged' into this. I have now been asked to extend the deletion discussion to this article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that far from being the car accident implied by Nom, this was a
ISIS terrorist attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It is clearly
WP:NOTE. It got a lot of media attention in international and national media. It got a lot of responses in France, especially in politics. And it was a planned terrorist attack, which normally get coverage here if it gets covered by mass media. I would love to know what is different to this article than to any other bomb plot or terrorist incident? --Rævhuld (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A car full of explosives and assault rifles attacking police officers resulting in a shooting in a major part of Paris is a notable event Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Award winner".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This was a Vehicle-ramming attack, not a "car crash."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad your here to pick apart a minor aspect of my comment E.M.Gregory. I fully realized what this incident was without your response but thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that virtually everything that will be said here was just said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack (which closed as KEEP.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor incident with zero injuries and zero deaths. As the nom said, somebody crashing into a police car is not an event notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. See
WP:10 year test. AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, 1985 Copenhagen bombings, and other articles about long-ago terrorist attacks precisely because they do not get forgotten. They get discussed. It is easier to create good articles as significant terrorist attacks happen, and sources and editors are readily available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Point of order
WP:ATA is very widely agreed with. Other essays are barely read, or represent fringe opinions, not generally shared by many contributors. In the interest of openness, transparency, fairness, I encourage you to preface every reference to an essay with the phrase "the essay". Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

We don't generally cover each murder with its own individual article. Why? Because most murders are so similar that our readers can rely on our articles on the topic of murder, and our articles on penal codes. Murders that are unusual, and trigger press coverage because the circumstances were notable, or the participants were notable, are good candidates for articles. The topic of terrorists ramming police cars is unusual. Should it be covered in a subsection of an article about traffic accidents in France? No. We don't have that article, and it wasn't an accident.
If murders were as rare as terrorists ramming police cars I am sure we would cover each and everyone with its own article.
AusLondonder, you wrote: "somebody crashing into a police car is not an event notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia."
Woah! There is no tactful way to say this, but this comment triggers a concern for me as to how well you understand the wikipedia's basic policies. We are not supposed to editorialize. We don't determine the notability of a topic by sharing our personal opinion of its notability. We determine its notability based on whether reliable sources found it notable. A couple of decades ago Canada's first openly gay MP was caught shoplifting an inexpensive item at a drug store. Shoplifting a bottle of sunscreen might seem like something you and I might, personally, think shouldn't merit coverage at the wikipedia. But our personal opinions aren't relevant! RS covered the event, in detail. That makes the event notable. Period. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - when I first proposed deletion for the other page, the article simply stated that a van crashed into a police car-- nothing about bombs or other weapons. So I do not have a strong opinion for this, but was asked to open another discussion and I did so. But at the same time, I think it might be a case where a compilation of failed attacks would be better suited. It is easy to miss the forest for the trees when there is an article for every occurrence, rather than having all the information in one article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 23:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant doesn't even have a subhead on the attacks it has been confirmed to have carried out abroad. Redirecting this article to any single one of those articles emphasizes only a single aspect of this attack's significance. Keeping it as an article enables those other articles to link to it and, as you say, enables us to help our readers see each of the forests, not merely the the individual trees.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS, there is already a mention of this incident at Champs-Élysées. The killer will get no trial, where is the lasting impact? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an attack of no long-term consequence. I have noticed there were calls for extending the state of emergency but that is expected from a city enduring attacks in a relatively short amount of time. All in all, this is an obvious
~~WP:NOTNEWS event that is better explained in a list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Struck my vote because I do not want to be involved in a discussion where editors blatantly ignore all the encyclopedic reasons to delete or redirect this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping the closing admin will weigh the comments fairly. The coverage of this event appears to have stopped, it isn't like the others where you have a truck plowing through a crowd of people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks like a failed terrorist attack. Unless evidence of long term impact emerges, there is little about this article stub that isn't already covered in List of terrorist incidents in France. Not every skirmish in a conflict deserves a stand-alone article. If this incident is officially declared as terrorism, redirecting is a viable option. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ramming is not an accident, it's a deliberate act. This ramming has received international coverage and is being investigated as a terrorist attack. Cllgbksr (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extensive coverage on this. This is no ordinary "crash", this was a terror plot that meant to do much more than crash into a car. Many explosives were found in the vehicle. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we have the
WP:LASTING notability? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

We have no CRYSTALBALL but the fact the perp had been for years on the "S Fiche", i.e., was, according to Wikipedia, "an individual considered to be a serious threat to national security" is likely to result in investigations of did the government fail to do anything about the terrorist. Likely we'll see references to this attack for years.XavierItzm (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but with all due respect you cited
WP:CRYSTAL then proceeded to say "Likely we'll see references to this attack for years". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep covered by RS, part of a larger pattern of Islamic terrorism in France.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am legitimately ashamed of a lot of editors here. One day of coverage that mirrors itself is considered "extensive"? Not one keep rationale has explained the long-term
Like a bunch of sheep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I am legitimately offended when an editor attempts to shame other editors for how they vote. The last sentence of
WP:LASTING states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Unless you have a crystal ball that this event that has received sufficient international RS will have no long lasting effect, an apology is in order. Cllgbksr (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

See also
WP:RAPID, which applies with special force to incidents like explosions, riots, skyscraper fires, and terrorist attacks. We routinely create articles on incidents of these sorts when they make national and international headlines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Cllgbksr I don't need a crystal ball to identify the event does not establish a long-term impact. We don't wait for subjects to be notable; they either are or they are not. When or if they are, then you write an article about it. Makes sense, right?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this incident was and still is covered globally, and most likely belongs to a series of similar motivated attacks.Joobo (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article because
Islamist attacks in general, are treated as notable events by the international media, are invariably revisited by analysts, journalists, and scholars in the years after they occur, and are therefore almost always WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you please provide a reliable source that LINKS this as an ISIS attack? Its one thing to claim something but its another to prove it is so as ISIS claims responsibility for everything that is seen as an attack against the west. We don't even know if this is terrorism or a nutjob as this is still being investigated as terrorism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is flawed. Perhaps you do not follow this issue, but Amaq/ISIS by no means "ISIS claims responsibility for everything.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times on Amaq, which posted this claim immediately.: "Despite a widespread view that the Islamic State opportunistically claims attacks with which it has little genuine connection, its track record — minus a handful of exceptions — suggests a more rigorous protocol.At times, the Islamic State has gotten details wrong, or inflated casualty figures, but the gist of its claims is typically correct. The group has made it clear that it considers itself responsible both for acts carried out by its own personnel, as well as acts carried out by people who lack direct ties to the group but were inspired by its propaganda. In several instances, moreover, the Islamic State has claimed attacks before the identities of the killers were known."[3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Plus other sources now added to article. We really don't delete well-sourced
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Widely covered. Possibly linked to London revenge attacks. Just because the attacker failed, does not detract from the rather large potentialndamage here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly meets notability guidelines regardless of assailant's background TheWarOfArt (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is one of many recent terrorist attacks, albeit an unsuccessful one, and as mentioned above, an attack on police officers that results in a shooting makes this noteworthy. MeanMotherJr (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break this to you but police officers get attacked somewhere in the world every week. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- and when, as here, such an attack is the subject of intense international news coverage, such an attack can be WP Notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you mean a splash in the news, yes it got that. We shouldn't be making these attacks more notable than they are as this one has not received ongoing coverage. There has been nothing that I have seen that has come out of this attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Knowledgekid87 Wikipedia coverage is neither a reward, or a punishment. Your comment implies (1) you think the driver is being rewarded; your comment implies (2) you seem to think we should try to influence public perception of causes, like terrorism.
      Yes, AGF, we all personally abhor terrorism. No, we should not try to use the wikipedia to influence organizations we don't like, even ISIS and al Qaeda. To do so erodes the confidence we want the public to feel in our neutrality. Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Knowledgekid87 Indeed. Here in my city, and probably yours too, there will be multiple instances today, where a police officer had a drunk take a poke at him or her. Many of those incidents not only won't end up in the wikipedia, they may not even make it into the officer's report, because the officer dodged the blow, and didn't consider it worth the paperwork. This event isn't like that. Not even close. If being a sloppy, angry, combative drunk was as rare as being an angry, combative, terrorist wannabe, don't you think we would cover every time a drunk attacked a police officer? Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the article has been read almost 6000 times, in the last week or so. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 26 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

Lists of Transformers characters. Unclear whether to delete or merge; the redirect allows editors to figure that out later. Sandstein 07:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Sizzle (Transformers)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources "in-universe", no independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some
Lists of Transformers characters. But figuring out where to merge what... sigh. This is already nicely covered on wikia http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Sizzle_(disambiguation) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Deleteor merge with the the same rationale as Piotrus (EXCEPT to state that tfwiki is not a wikia site). --Khajidha (talk) 18:49, 23 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

Lists of Transformers characters. Unclear whether to delete or merge; the redirect allows editors to figure that out later. Sandstein 07:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Makeshift (Transformers)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are "in-universe" and there are no independent sources. 23:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete or merge to some
Lists of Transformers characters. But figuring out where to merge what... sigh. This is already nicely covered on wikia http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Makeshift_(disambiguation) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Deleteor merge with the the same rationale as Piotrus (EXCEPT to state that tfwiki is not a wikia site). --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 23 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 and redirect to Alien (film). The entire unsourced content, by CaptainAlexVolichenko, was: "The U.S.S. Nostromo NCC-94181-F is an Odyssey Class Federation Starship, under command of Fleet Admiral Alex Volichenko. The U.S.S. Nostromo-F 7th Federation Vessel to be called Nostromo. This Vessel has gone up against everything the Alpha/Beta and Delta Quadrant have to offer". I doubt that there's any value in keeping this in the history, not that any of the "redirect" opinions ask for that. Sandstein 07:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Nostromo

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

Does not pass

WP:GNG RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete/redirect Basically a Hoax. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete as A1 - no context. The subject of the article is a fictional Star Trek ship. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make it boldly go where non-canonical Star Trek "wessels" have gone before. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I'm pretty sure the guy wanted a noticeable ship so he ripped off Aliens and then made it an Odyssey class to make it cool. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alien (film). I have seen the Nostromo from that film being referred to as the USS Nostromo: 1 2 3. Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: That isn't the correct name of the ship though. The correct name of the Aliens ship is USCSS Nostromo. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but nevertheless, some sources do appear to call it the USS Nostromo. Here's another one: 4. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and without any particular need to keep article history) per Adam9007. We DO redirect from plausible search terms, and this would be one per the sources he cited. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unsourced and badly written, and probably a hoax. Making a redirect somewhere else after deletion would be an editorial decision. Reyk _YO! 09:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the above commentary.
Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This looks like a hoax. The article implies a Star Trek ship, but there is no notable ship of the name in any Star Trek series. Dunarc (talk) 18:42, 20 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) 22:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Saxena

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

Not notable person. Fails

WP:ANYBIO —usernamekiran(talk) 21:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cringed when I read that the subject seems to think that the
talk) 02:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

BTW, there is a chance he owns Hasselblad HV, which is the only Full Frame Hasselblad. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Promotional article for commercial photographer, clearly failing
WP:CREATIVE criteria. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Grotesque, as described above. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 20 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) - TheMagnificentist 15:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Branicki Residential House - Smolna 40

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

Building which is possibly covered by Poland's heritage system but at this time, article is an advertising article for a hotel. scope_creep (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep I've looked at it before, and yes, it was created for promotional purposes. I've removed most advertising language during my c/e a while back. While I couldn't find details of its listing as a monument, to a bit of my surprise there's media coverage that suggests this passes GNG: [4], [5] - those are two articles from (regional addition to) major polish daily newspaper. This was also covered by regional TV news: [6]. Warsaw's monument department has a press release (?) on that: [7]. All of this strongly suggests IMHO that the building is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is absolutely beautiful, and could do with staying. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the combination of sources indentified by Piotrus, including the listing in a historic registry, indicates a notable structure. Keep.
talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Seems to be under preservation order as listed monument, home of famous artist. Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed heritage building per
WP:GEOFEAT. But rename. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- The article needs better citations, but it is credible. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 25 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) 22:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuta Suzuki

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 17:45, 26 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) 22:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latifabad unit 6

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

WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. So many things wrong about this article.
WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Also a bit of an attack page aimed at those filthy folks in unit 11. Delete.
talk) 19:48, 19 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) 22:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Herning-Ikast Championship

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

Non Notable second division results table fails

WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete. Either a hoax or some non-notable video game competition or fantasy league. The cities Herning and Ikast are in Denmark. I'm Danish and can find nothing about this. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly just some kids documenting their competition on FIFA or similar. Not sure where the nom gets the idea that this is a "second division results table" from.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 25 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) 22:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bodwin

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

The subject of this article appears to fail

WP:NMUSIC. There is no entry for the one source cited, which I presume is supposed to be a book, in the British Library catalogue. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete per nom. — Quasar G. 18:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear fail of the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 21 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) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gryn

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

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Having taken a second look at the Forbes article, the Forbes article is not very impressive, and seems to be based on an interview (perhaps the one that was published a bit later at [8]). The Business Insider it not a very in-depth treatment. He does get a decent amount of mentions in passing, including in English ([9]). Except few interviews (here's another one: [10]) and such mentions in passing, mostly related to his recent joining in the ranks of millionaires, there is nothing else I can find. Few interviews and no real in-depth treatment -
WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 20 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) 22:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EON5

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

Non-notable record label. Fails the

corporations notability criteria. - TheMagnificentist 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete: Can't find any reliable source to show notability, otherwise failing our basic standards. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article created by an SPA blocked for sockpuppetry. No RS available for this non-notable record label. — Quasar G. 18:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 19 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) 22:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Guye Galerie

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

Article has a strongly promotional background (see history), and a COI editor/creator. The topic itself does not seem to be notable per our GNG: there are mentions, of course, since they exist and exhibit things and have clients, but I see no discussion of the topic. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- that's the problem- Japanese photographers of the postwar generation are internationally important. Modern Japanese photographers as represented by the gallery are (probably) notable. The gallery itself- probably not notable at the moment. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited and while artist, represented by the gallery may be and are notable, unless there is no a verifiable sources about the gallery itself, it's not notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Arthistorian1977 said [ahem: preferably after a little proofreading]. (As for what Xanthomelanoussprog said, a lot of postwar Japanese photographers are "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, and a rather smaller number are notable as the word is generally used. The same is of course true for US photographers, etc etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd go with delete. I have the feeling that Christophe Guye's probably more notable than his gallery (former ad man with a passion for Japanese photography, who's got several snappers on exclusive contract and claims to have an "intense" relationship with the artists.) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of interest, Xanthomelanoussprog, could you name some/all of these exclusively contracted Japanese snappers? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the website these are the photogs his gallery represents: Jun Ahn, Miles Aldridge, Roger Ballen, Stéphane Couturier, Roger Eberhard, Stephen Gill, Bill Henson, Ina Jang, Rinko Kawauchi, Nick Knight, Ola Kolehmainen, Kosuke, Seba Kurtis, Brigitte Lustenberger, Yoshinori Mizutani, Lina Scheynius, Lieko Shiga, Jules Spinatsch, Will Steacy, Risaku Suzuki, Kazuna Taguchi, Dominique Teufen, Albert Watson and Michael Wolf. There is the caveat that Guye is the one claiming exclusive contracts- I assume he hasn't got an exclusive contract with Nick Knight! Okay, so I've checked Yoshinori Mizutani, and he's not exclusive to Guye. I also checked out a local as being the most likely to be contracted- Brigitte Lustenberger is a Zurich-based photographer who's exhibited in the last few years at a number of different galleries. She is presently crowdfunding her photobooks, which suggests that there's no 'exclusive' contract. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Welches Verhältnis gehen Sie mit den Künstlern ein?" (Zoran Bozanic) "Auf der persönlichen Seite ein sehr intensives, aus rechtlicher Sicht hauptsächlich Exklusivverträge." (Guye)
Thanks. It's an odd list. Among them, Jun Ahn, Rinko Kawauchi, Kosuke, Yoshinori Mizutani, Lieko Shiga, Risaku Suzuki, Kazuna Taguchi either are Japanese or sound more or less Japanese. Some I haven't heard of. (Kosuke is one of these. It's a given name, and rather a common one. It's as if a photographer were billed as "David".) Kawauchi and Shiga are the best known. If either is exclusive to this gallery, then the fact goes unmentioned on her own website; also, it would be surprising given the number of shows she has recently had (or has scheduled from now) elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had a look, and can't find a surname for Kosuke, so we might as well call him 'Dave'. What is it with the Zurich art scene? (see Galerie Gmurzynska) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosuke Okahara, for one, merits his article. I dunno about the galleries, but they seem big on "G" alliteration. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Kosuke was born in 1986, and specialises in photomontage (the Warning series). A couple were sold at the Hong Kong branch of Sotheby's in 2015 in what seems to have been a selling exhibition. For some reason the results are difficult or impossible to discover; peeking behind the paywall at some financial rag's report on the sale gives a range of prices between 800 USD/600 GBP and 260,000 USD. Presumably Kosuke '86 is down the lower end of the scale. The Gmurnskaya article had its share of COI editing; there's a murky tale involving an archive of Suprematist art and Mrs Gmurzynska, which isn't to everybody's taste :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:56, 23 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) 22:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RCMetrics

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

Originally redirected by Deb. Creator has contested that so bringing it to AfD. This is incoherent text that appears to be about merging yoga with modern technological metrics and advancements. Only search results yield information about an unrelated company. Doesn't pass GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. That'll teach me to try and be tolerant... Deb (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete - fails
WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per
WP:NCORP anyway. — Quasar G. 19:08, 19 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 procedural close. Duplicate article merged into a more complete one, deletion discussion shifted to that article:

(non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

19 June 2017 Paris incident

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

A van crashing into a police car is not notable. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Incident seems relatively minor, only the media makes it larger than it actually is. A car rammed a police van and caught fire then a suspect was taken down and arrested, nothing more.JBergsma1 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised at the rush to create an article. That said, this looks like a failed suicide bombing. Explosives were found and only the attacker was killed. It is too early to determine yet whether this gets lasting attention. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every attempted terror attack cannot get its own article. There are other pages (ie Islamic Terrorism in Europe 2014-present) where the event can be noted. This is excessive and the article is a stub and will not get too much longer unless the failed suicide bomber was Tupac. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is a duplicate of June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, which has substantially more information. ansh 666 21:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - JBergsma1, Gene93k, and Ansh666 this discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack by the nom. I suggest re-inserting your comments from here and/or write other responses.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:17, 19 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 speedily deleted by me as the

unambiguous advertising comes through despite the mangled translation.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

SP Fala Sobre Cartao De Visita Felipe Fontes

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

Possible G11 violation. Appears to be an advertisement for business cards after putting through Google Translate but may not be completely accurate.

talk) 15:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Speedy delete - It's close enough to an advertisement and completely unusable as encyclopedic content so I invoked
WP:IAR and nominated it for G11 deletion.- Mr X 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-tip-- don't say "IAR" and "close enough to promo to delete". Say "clearly unambiguous advertising". I could not find a paragraph that was not advertising. There was no ambiguity at all, in fact. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:44, 19 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. So Why 07:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Kerkhoven

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

~~BLP~~ Bio with 1 UGC wiki, 1 primary, so fails GNG. Quick Google and book search didn't find anything. Widefox; talk 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (although person is not living) – Editør (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, corrected. Widefox; talk 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a municipal council is not an automatic
reliable sourcing about him than this, but nothing present here is even really claiming, let alone properly sourcing, anything that would make him eligible. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 21 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) 22:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Aviation (United Kingdom)

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

No references. Doesn't appear to exist Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as stand alone article; an out-of-date promotional piece; as written, from a questionable cited source of 2009, the company was to expand their services in 2011, however, there is nothing to suggest they did.
WP:Corp applies. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was convinced in a google-news search that "alpha aviation" mostly referred to non-UK companies.Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 20 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 delete. In my view, the content of this article does fall under both

G11 because it is entirely written in a promotional manner and fails to state why the subject is significant. Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Acorn Audio

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

no references. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Speedy delete -- spam created by a SPA. I requested a speedy deletion under A7 & G 11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 24 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 deleted --

^"talk" 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Mr Alan Khan

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

I'm not seeing how a wedding photographer is likely to pass

WP:GNG Legacypac (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:A7. Completely non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 19 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. Clear consensus to delete. PenaltyCard's "reluctant keep" makes a reasonable theoretical case, but analysis of actual mentions by multiple delete commenters adequately rebuts the possibility of significant coverage in reliable sources. No other keep votes were persuasive. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paraduin

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

Non-notable 'micronation.' A

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Most peculiar sourcing - seems to consist principally of pieces in the homegrown propaganda bulletin, mixed up with blogs and what appears to be the Dutch Deletionpedia equivalent (?). And do my eyes deceive me, or are several of these pieces authored by the editor who created this article? This is a miasma of COI and makes no credible claim for notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable hoax. --Yopie (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, sourcing sucks, possible hoax, created by COI/POV editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I am aware that some people consider micronations a hoax, that really doesn't matter here. Many hoaxes have a page on Wikipedia, as do many micronations. Paraduin's activities, meanwhile, are very real, and my COI has been properly declared. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a notable hoax and
Talk to me 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The following sources are not primary: Durham University, South Maudlandian Standard, Romania TV, Sociaal Bestek (yes, this is a real magazine), Oikos Online, Radio Televizija Vojvodine, Dread Central, Bloody Disgusting. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just the
talk) 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It may seem that way because I rewrote much of Liberland, but no, my starting points were the Wikisage and Micronations Wiki articles on Paraduin. If you're suggesting a merge, I would rather write an article on Siga since the Liberland article is very detailed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very reluctant Keep This is a very strange article, with a soup of sources including some terrible ones, swathes of content stolen from the Liberland article, and (speaking as a micronationalist), this has clearly been written by the country's founder. However, if anyone felt as though they were prepared to gut and rewrite this, a good faith look at the sources and a Google search throws up one or two articles in magazines and such forth that merit what I think is weak notability. PenaltyCard (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My fellow user User:PenaltyCard said it better than I ever could.Mahuset (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The
WP:GNG (See Sealand and Principality of Hutt River for the most prominent examples). This one, however, doesn't show anything available in sources that would qualify. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This entire WP page is currently "sourced" to that personal website. I assume that the person who created that site is probably the same person who is counted as the single citizen of "Paraduin" (in the infobox) and possibly the same person who created this WP page. All other sources currently used on the page are also either not RS or do not tell anything directly on the subject. This is
WP:SOAP at worst. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – per what Fortuna had to offer. There isn't any coverage from reliable sources and I was concerned that there was a COI between the editor and Paraduin. Throughout the article consists of basic background information about the land dispute (which is mentioned on Liberland or
Talk to me 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete I'm not seeing independent reliable sources about the micronation, just mention in passing and self-serving junk. Note that the article creator's community ban has been reinstated after an ANI thread. Meters (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no reasonable claim for significance, and a Godzilla-sized COI attached to the dominant editor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some friends of mine were talking about this on the social students forum. It doesn't seem right to have Liberland but not Paraduin, as they were first. And your search is not very good. They are mentioned in a lot of publications about Liberland. --Dolberty (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "We discussed it" on some student forum is not a good reason to keep and if you claim there are better sources, please cite them. Merely claiming they exist does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, thank you for your comment. I don't know about better, just more. Romanian television is already very good I think. But what about everyone saying delete? Shouldn't they prove what they're saying, too? Dolberty (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Thanks, I'm not really sure what you are saying but of course it was made up one day. So was Liberland. All micronations are. I just added Neutral Moresnet somewhere. It was made up one day, too. Also some micronations are made up by girls. Dolberty (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, with the help from my friends I think I know what happened now. There are many publications about Liberland that say something about Paraduin. For instance in

UniLad. Google has them. They all look like good publications for the Liberland article, too. But the people that created it didn't want to use them. In my opinion there are way too many Liberland fans here who want their own version of history. The president of Liberland is even editing his own article. --Dolberty (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

You don't need to search. They forgot to tell me that there is a new version of this article which is longer and has more sources. It is here: [12]. I'm now leaving this topic. It's interesting but I have a school project. Dolberty (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Hahahaha! So funny. You made my day. Dolberty (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Paraduin were the location of a noteworthy event, it might belong here. If Paraduin were covered by reliable texts -- especially ones that were actually about Paraduin itself and not brief references in relation to another topic -- it might belong here. So far, this subject seems to have been given a passing treatment in articles about better-known microstates, and for good reason. It is
suggested that a hundred words (or even fifty) in a single source qualifies as "significant coverage," but I don't see any of this anywhere. Apart from self-published sources by the creators of Paraduin, the only mention of it in (barely) reliable sources seems to be "oh, yeah, and Paraduin is a thing that exists." I don't see anything like a full article dedicated to it, a mention in a book, even a magazine article dedicated specifically to covering Paraduin. Show me a publication with some kind of editorial oversight give this topic more than a once-over, and I'll change my vote. RexSueciae (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Hi, I don't know if it counts but this is one I found myself and it has more than 100 words:[13]. Google translate says paradise! And there are several about Liberland that have more than 50 words about Paraduin. Shouldn't you add it up? (Sorry, still here.) Dolberty (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's somebody's blog, so no, it doesn't count. ... discospinster _talk 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, ok. My girlfriend (yeah) has been counting words. These are the results: 31, 41, 49, 53, 58, 60, 88, 138, 145 (this is a journal on paper but the text was copied to the website). Dolberty (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - RexSueciae Liberlanders and their flag getting captured is what happened in Paraduin. Dolberty (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Dolberty, let me go through these sources that are being provided:

Vagabond magazine is a decent source, but the entirety of their content on Paraduin is a few sentences taken from Geek.com.

Geek.com is a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.

RomaniaTV is a decent source, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.

EnDanDit looks like a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland and also some redditor talked about it. The comment from Guido den Broeder does not count.

ThePlaidZebra looks like a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.

Unilad is a typical pop culture website, but literally the only thing on Paraduin is that it apparently exists in the vicinity of Liberland.

OikosOnline looks like a typical pop culture website, and we're in luck! They mention that Paraduin exists, and that Paraduin is believed by some to be a gateway to a planet called Paraduin. That is a piece of information that could be cited properly.

The South Maudlandian Standard is a

self-published source

, from the "Republic of South Maudlandia," and is also an opinion piece. If it were a reliable source, you could get the additional bit of information about when Paraduin enthusiasts claimed it to be founded.

Documents produced or hosted by the administration of Paraduin is of questionable use here. Wikipedia standards allow for these sorts of sources to be used for information on their subject (so, for example, a claim for Paraduin's current leadership can be cited to a Paraduin source) but not for determining notability (anybody could create a website for their thing and then reference it).

So now we've established three things: Paraduin exists in the vicinity of Liberland, at least one person on Reddit knows about it, and it is believed by some to be the gateway to another planet. That's hardly enough information to write a wiki article (even stubs have the potential to be filled with information, though it may be low-priority or obscure), and never more than a couple or three consecutive sentences about Paraduin. Every single article is about Liberland, with the sidenote "oh yeah and Paraduin too" tacked on. Most, if not all, Wikipedia articles can be expanded with information from Google Scholar, JSTOR, printed books from reliable publishers, and websites from reliable organizations. Even in the case of a relatively recent thing or event that would not have so many journal articles and whatnot written about it, you'd expect a mainstream news company to write at least something about Paraduin if it's so notable that it gets a Wikipedia page. I think that about sums up my position -- my vote, unfortunately, remains a solid "no." RexSueciae (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RexSueciae, that is your right of course. I think there are enough words. My teacher says that there should be a minimum of three meaningful facts. Do you agree with that? Dolberty (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:Meat. Creating an account to vote because someone told you is not a good idea.My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

I have the right to my opinion, just like Rex. I disagree with what he is saying, because there is more information in the publications, but we are having a good discussion. You are just yelling. I think you should change your name now. Dolberty (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me 13:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

That was fine by my civility standards. But here is the problem with the page, and it is very common for many "pseudo-pages" in WP. There are several sources that only mention the existence of the subject, but do not tell anything of substance about it. Everything of substance comes from the single unreliable primary source, i.e. a website created by the subject itself. This is plain non-notable, and nothing can be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether it is a hoax or not, the subject is not notable in WP terms. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability. Kleuske (talk) 01:02, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn by Barbara (WVS). (non-admin closure) – Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phytobiome

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

In my discussions that I have had with the other editor of this article I became convinced that this article has been created in good faith. The other major editor may have a conflict of interest regarding the maintenance of this page. The title is a neologism and is not widely used except in the self-generated materials and conference agendas. The editor that communicated to me that the term 'Phytobiome' is 'coined' and is a created word

WP:NEO. The editor has added a template to their talk page indicating they have a conflict of interest but they don't describe it. The editor has only edited the phytobiome article and placed a link in the microbiota and the holobiont articles. It appears that the only independent source that uses the term phytobiome appears in the well-respected journal 'Naure'. I actually hate nominating articles for deletion and suggest that this article be moved to the user's draft space until the word becomes more widely used by independent sources. I also propose that the other editor has a major conflict of and be counselled on how to edit accordingly. This editor should state their affiliation with the organizations mentioned in the article. If the editor is willing, I will be happy to guide them through this process of AfD discussion and move the article to their draft space. I will provide a link to their draft space to them and explain the process of editing without a conflict of interest and how to better reveal their conflict of interest. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Provisional keep. I'm having trouble getting my head around this nomination. At least in its current form, the article doesn't appear to be about an organisation, it's about a scientific concept. We don't usually consider scientists writing about their field of study a conflict of interest. If the concept is a neologism, it seems notable enough to me: there's a journal called Phyobiome published by the (apparently well-respected?) American Phytopathological Society; papers with "phytobiome" in the title in Cell, Current Opinion in Plant Biology[14] and Plant Gene; and dozens of mentions in text of other papers. However this isn't my area so I'm not sure. @Barbara (WVS): can you clarify what conflict of interest you think there is here, and what you mean by not independent/"self-generated" sources in this context? – Joe (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that
talk) 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Yes but I wonder if they mean that they're involved with one of the organisations research phytobiomes mentioned in the article. We wouldn't usually consider that a COI with regard to the whole topic. (Being a member of the
  Prehistoric Society doesn't stop me writing about prehistory!) In any case COI isn't a reason to delete an article. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep This is a slight but adequately sourced article about a term with sufficient usage in its field that it can be considered notable; which is demonstrated by the provided sources (those naked URLs need a bit of clothing - will do). As noted by Joe above, scientists generally don't get hardlined about "COI" regarding their field, as this is is our primary source of expert editorship on many specialist topics. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tidied refs up a bit, some concatenation --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've notified Isac16, the main contributor to this article after the creator, about this discussion. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the editor works for a consulting firm according to some personal correspondence I was sent and is not the scientist who has done the research on this topic. The editor is involved in all the organizations that form the basis for all the references except the one Penn State reference. I have found some academic sources via a Pitt library search and will improve the article to include these reliable sources. The reason why these academic sources weren't probably used is that the editor is very new and probably has some difficulty in using academic searches and the WP system of notification and communication. I would like to 'de-nominate' this article for deletion. I am glad that this article can remain! I believe in building an encyclopedia, not tearing it down. My apologies to the author/editor. I will contact them via email since that is their preferred mode of communication.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 09:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, in that case I agree it would definitely be a good idea to inform them about our COI policy as well as

WP:PAID. However since you've withdrawn your nomination and we all agree the topic is notable I'll go ahead and close this AfD. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 20 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) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shenai Bridglall

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

Non notable beauty model. Written as a puff piece - nothing to indicate notability Gbawden (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete: Not notable and did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. The article fails
WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Doesn't meet GNG. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:45, 25 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 delete as copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Rakate

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

The content is obviously copied from some article, but the user has named the article in his real name. He had previously created his auto-biography. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:01, 19 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) 22:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2021 America's Cup

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

WP:TOOSOON New Zealand is not a signatory of the agreement, and they are the challenger in the final, therefore there is no guarantee that 2019 and 2021 will have america's cup races. Grant Dalton (NZ team CEO) is even quoted as having said that the new agreement will be “null and void” if they clinch the title [15]. Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 America's Cup — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no way of knowing if this will happen in 2021 yet.
talk) 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

delete way
WP:TOOSOON KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as speculation. Mattlore (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails both
is coming 07:13, 24 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jawwad Patel

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

noted for very minor project. Tedx speakers do not attain automatic notability. Fails WP:PROF. The references are basically press releases based on so-called "human interest," better known here as violations of NOTTABLOID. Even if one celebrates people inventing something trivial at a very young age, 22 isn't young enough to make this applicable. INDIALAIVETODY does not seem a reliable source for notability --and even they claim it is only "he has designed a 3D-printed apparatus which can ‘create’ water from air. He is the first person from Asia to have done so. ", not the first person to have done so, and not the first apparatus, but the first one to bother doing it on a 3D printer. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per detailed analysis above Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 08:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 25 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) 22:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiree

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage to meet

WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is not independent or passing mentions. Created by Special:Contributions/Siddharth4137 with no other contributions outside this topic. PROD removed by an IP with no improvements to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to pass
WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Nothing significant is found. just to promote it. Light2021 (talk) 19:17, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scripps Center

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

No indication of notability or importance. Architects involved have no article. Added material which supposedly conferred notability [16] is simply trivia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tallest building added to the Cincinnati skyline between 1931 and 2010, and an icon of the city, as illustrated, for example, by the national coverage given to the unusual decoration of the building for the 2015 All-Star game.[17][18] I can't see how removing this information improves our coverage of Cincinnati.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a reliable source which confirms your statement that is "the tallest building added to the Cincinnati skyline between 1931 and 2010". Remember that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source for the purposes of referencing our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Emporis says pretty much that. [19]. It also says that it is the 4th tallest building in Cinciinnati - why didn't you or the article's author include that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the building's status as the fourth tallest in Cincinnati, I withdraw this AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 23 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) 22:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Gaiter

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

Latmer County, Colorado county commissioner who is one of a number of hopeful candidates for governor in the Colorado gubernatorial election, 2018. Does not meet

Wikipedia:NPOLITICIAN. Coverage consists of announcement for candidacy and routine coverage of service on commission-- mostly quotes about actions of the commission and related issues. Coverage of candidacy is brief mentions in articles about other candidates as well and his campaign announcement. No in depth coverage as that needed for notability guidelines. Some removed content was mostly a mirror of campaign page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sourcing to indicate notability. Fails
WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future primary, and being a district commissioner at the county level is not an
WP:NPOL pass either. The nature of gubernatorial races is such that he likely will pass GNG if he wins the party's nomination and goes into the general election, because gubernatorial elections typically get much more widespread and nationalized coverage than individual legislative races do, so no prejudice against recreation if he wins the primary and goes into the general — but nothing here right now gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 21 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

Orb (optics). So Why 06:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Orb (paranormal)

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

WP:FRINGE sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

I would consider a merge to

Comment. Id like to know what is needed to cite an article on paranormal topics in general. This is reminiscent of another discussion I was involved in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape tree, which raised questions of RSes for "fringe'" or at least disputed topics, politically disputed in the other case. - Bri (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is thorough and substantial coverage of the topic in this article, and the article has many references, indicating it is a notable topic in parapsychology.Vorbee (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only difference to
Orb (optics) is the presence of a person who does not know what it is and finds it spooky. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - really no point; a few sentences in
Orb (optics) or Ghost should be more than enough, unless evidence comes up that it's really a big thing in popular culture. So, far, it seems to be extremely anecdotal. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to
Orb (optics). Artw (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

independent reliable sources is all it needs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Merge looks like a good outcome to me, as well. It does mean that the paranormal template will be included. - Bri (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a merge to

Orb (optics) with pseudoscientific nonsense. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Your use of the words "contaminating" and "nonsense" reflect

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nobody has made a fact- and policy-based reason to delete the article due to lack of notability. And navboxes are a legitimate and useful tool to help readers find related topics. Either the article stays with the navbox, or the navbox is moved to another meaningful location. - Bri (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Merge to
WP:POVFORK of a topic for which an article already exists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 23 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 and redirect to Roger Ailes#Personal life. So Why 06:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Ailes