Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 29

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.

Steve Babaeko

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are mostly interviews. reddogsix (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for opening this discussion. I am creating this profile because the subject is notable in the Nigerian advertising space. The cited interviews were necessary to offer clarity in the biography section. I am still working on the page to create more citations that better make the case for the subject's notability. I have a few already. Please do not rush to delete.Igwatala (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the refs seem to be Non-RS PROMO press releases, not a lot of other things on there. South Nashua (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article appears to have been moved to
  WP:R2). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 30 November 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. Jujutacular (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tohfat-ul-Awam

Tohfat-ul-Awam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find no in-depth sourcing to show that this passes

• Delete Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. There might be coverage in Urdu but I do not speak that language. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no actual compelling proof of existence, let alone of notability. Creating editor was blocked last year as a serial creator of articles that were subsequently deleted, and as a prolific uploader of unlicensed images that had to be deleted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::FYI - something seems buggy with the block notices. I just went to this article's creator's user page and the block notice is gone. I went to another user's page who I knew was just blocked for improperly moving a page and his notice is gone also. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Never mind - it was the contribs page, not the user page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Page has no references. However, I admit I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to know if it merits an article and just needs to be improved.

• Keep – Just because a Wikipedia article is unreferenced does not mean the article topic is not notable. This search of the phrase in medical journal article titles clearly establishes its notability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @
  WP:MCB. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a standalone page (but maybe rename as reverse transport), as well as merge in WP:Summary style into membrane transport protein. The topic is widely discussed in the scientific literature, and is clearly notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 30 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hallak

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

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

Non-notable film director. Still no in-depth coverage could be found. This should be salted as well.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons I outlined at the earlier AfD. From memory, this present incarnation of the article has less information about the subject even than the earlier puff-piece had. Salting wouldn't be a bad idea, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The situation has not changed at all since earlier this year when this last came up for deletion discussion. He still has not made any significant work as a filmmaker, and his work has not as a whole contributed long term to the body of thought. Academics do not become notable for their thesis, generally not even if they rework it into a published book (which a great many do, at least in the field of history, with which I am most familiar with), and filmmakers do not generally become notable for their thesis either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is a recognized filmmaker of the month by the D.C. Film Office, made major VR Sci-Fi perfect that was featured in the Huff Post. He served as a judge at major film festivals such as Washington West Film Festival.— JackSwan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The "major project" you mention doesn't seem to have an awful lot of coverage outside of the source provided, and being "filmmaker of the month" doesn't strike me as an overly major claim to notability - I was "employee of the month" a couple of times in my old job, but it doesn't earn me an article. Why not re-create the article once he is notable, rather than a few months after consensus had been that he isn't? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallak has served as faculty member at the New York Film Academy in Los Angeles where he supervised thesis film projects at the MFA in Filmmaking Program. He served as a judge at a major film festival, giving him an honor as an industry professional and recognized filmmaker. His "Major Project" was featured on veer.tv as well.

Just a quick suggestion going forward: in AfD discussions, it's generally a good thing to "sign" your posts. Just type the "tilde" character (~) four times at the end of your comment, and it will include your name, a link to your Talk page and the time you left the comment. To respond to the substance of your comments - the featuring on Veer.TV looks more like just an upload to that particular site, much in the way that you or I could upload videos to YouTube or elsewhere if we wanted to. In relation to his position as an academic, he would need to meet one or more of the criteria

general notability guideline. Simply being a faculty member doesn't get him anywhere near over the line, I'm afraid. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

He was featured on Veer, meaning his project 'Project Gordon' was selected to be on the front page, just like Vimeo has staff picks. Not every faculty supervises final thesis projects of the MFA in filmmaking, those movies are screened at WB, that gives him credibility. CGBros normally doesn't feature any project, his Sci-Fi project 'The Paradigm' 2014 was featured on CGBros and several major sites, I believe that is a recognition for his quality of work. he was selected to judge a major film festival that is presented by Boeing. Maybe he doesn't have enough publicity, I agree, he should hire a manger or publicist, but that doesn't mean he should not be recognized for his work JackSwan (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of "how much publicity does he have?" It's a case of "is he notable?" If he's attracted multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the man himself, the answer to that second question is "yes", and he gets an article. In this instance, he doesn't seem to have done so as yet. I'm sure he's a terrific person, an up-and-coming talent and one to watch out for in the future. None of that equates to notability, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was addressed directly and in detail in several articles and media. to find many articles, search his name along with any of his movie projects. Found in several forms and media sites and featured in other languages. Found in Multiple sources, IMDb, Huff Post, NYFA, AUS, CGBros .. and many media coverage that not affiliated with him. He has a significant coverage in reliable sources, he was a panelist at The Future of Film 2017 Conference at the University of Maryland at College Park JackSwan (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, being user-editable, isn't usually the best source to refer to. I'd also question how independent NYFA would be, since he's a faculty member there as you've indicated. As far as the other sources go, I've searched and genuinely haven't found them. Could you provide a link or two? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the amount of work he did, he needed more publicity, he deserves it. here are few .. https://www.fof.media/alhallak, http://worldanimationfilmfestival.com/film-animation-news/cg/film-director-al-hallak-of-sci-fi-thriller-the-paradigm-hits-hollywood-by-storm/, https://www.ausalumni.ae/s/1467/17/interior.aspx?sid=1467&gid=1&pgid=252&cid=2673&ecid=2673&ciid=1695&crid=0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIKzMNOMhUJackSwan (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's leave the concept of "publicity" out of this. Wikipedia is emphatically not the place either to drum up publicity for someone or to rectify a lack of publicity in their careers. It's all about

WP:DIRECTOR? No. The WAFF link is two things, both of them concerning. Firstly, it opens with the statement that Hallak is "on the verge" of success. Admittedly, that dates from 2015, but the object of the exercise here is that he needs to already be notable, rather than requiring a Wikipedia bio to become so (it's a common misconception that things work the other way). Secondly, the link is to a press release from Hallak himself. Remember that one of the key planks of notability is that the sources need to be independent of the subject? That's not remotely independent. The Ausalumni link is also not independent, since it's a Q&A session with Hallak again. As we've discussed before, the point here is that Hallak (or anyone else) needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. He's a young up-and-comer in - from what I understand - an industry full of young up-and-comers. I'm sure you think very highly of him, but that doesn't mean he gets an article yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I respect your opinion but I disagree, I mean by "publicity" written articles about him and his work, Do you think If he has an article about his work on "Reuters" for example would make him notable? I would argue that he doesn't get the coverage he deserves. I agree that anyone can upload to YouTube, but just to clarify, those YouTube CHs are part of known sites such as http://www.joblo.com, they don't upload any video, think of staff pick on Vimeo. The Future of Film Conference is our annual platform, part of Creative Edge Collaborative https://creativeedgepg.wordpress.com sponsored by Maryland Film Office, they select industry experts for their annual panels at the University of Maryland. I would argue that he is not young and up-and-comer in, and his resume is not thin, how would someone "young up-and-comer in" can be a jury member at a festival sponsored by Boing, a panelist for a conference hosted by University of Maryland, an instructor supervising thises films at the MFA in Filmmaking screened at Warner Brothers in Los Angeles, I am not sure what evidence you are basing your judgment on. I disagree with the note that he is young and up-and-comer. JackSwan (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address the points in the order in which you raised them. Would a Reuters article make him notable? In the abstract, impossible to say. Again, what makes a subject notable is the existence of multiple, non-trivial, independent and reliable sources. In principle, a Reuters article looking in-depth at his body of work would be all of those things but the first (for the simple reason that it would be one article only), but it would depend on the article. I couldn't give a blanket answer without seeing it. In terms of YouTube, it doesn't matter who or what was responsible for the upload, the fact remains that YouTube doesn't count as a source establishing notability, so we can move onto other topics. I used the terms "young up-and-comer" and "thin resume" to indicate that regardless of what he's done or not done, he doesn't pass either

WP:GNG or the other criteria. Because he hasn't attracted that coverage, he doesn't meet those criteria. Because he doesn't meet the criteria, he isn't notable. Because he isn't notable, there's no reason for him to have an article at present. All of that is based in policies and guidelines to which I have linked you. You're welcome to disagree with those policies and guidelines, but unless and until those change, we all work within them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I respect your work and the work of the other judges, I am just saying my opinion, It is possible to at least say he is a filmmaker, because he is. I am sure he will have those requirements in the near future .. all the best. JackSwan (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete weighing this article on
  WP:TOOSOON may also apply here. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He was addressed directly and in detail in several articles and media. to find many articles, search his name along with any of his movie projects. Found in several forms and media sites and featured in other languages. Found in Multiple sources, IMDb, Huff Post, NYFA, AUS, CGBros .. and many media coverage that not affiliated with him. He has a significant coverage in reliable sources, he was a panelist at The Future of Film 2017 Conference at the University of Maryland at College Park. JackSwan (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sign of evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. The one editor saying "keep" uses reasons which have little, or in some cases nothing, to do with the notability guidelines, such as "I would argue that he doesn't get the coverage he deserves". Notability requires that there actually is coverage, not that someone who chooses to edit Wikipedia thinks that there should be. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note, he has coverage, but it seems to Wikipedia that it's not enough, is there a number of articles that he should have in order to qualify, he has 4 listed already including MovieMaker and Huff Post. If everyone thinks it should be deleted, then let it be, I will keep following his movie projects and events and write again about him in the near future, I truly believe he deserves a page in the future, he is brilliant. JackSwan (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't "write about him in the near future" until he meets the criteria we've talked about above. That's a sure-fire way to attract administrative sanction and make it harder for an article to be written about him if and when he achieves notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't write about him until he meets the criteria, It is possible to at least say he is a filmmaker, is anyone can edit the page to reflect on his achievements. I guess sooner or later he will be covered enough in the media to have a page edited by someone. Thanks, all the best. JackSwan (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dermala

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

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

No substantial coverage outside of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. obvious PROMO. it is kind of pitiful that they have to say the same thing three times just to fill out a stubby article. I think we get it that they are a microbiome company focused on skin. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debi Makhsoospuri

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Punjabi Music Awards are not in the rarefied tier of music awards that are notable enough to constitute a pass of NMUSIC #8 — merely calling them "the Punjabi Grammy Awards" in an otherwise abysmally sourced article doesn't make them equivalent to the Grammy Awards, because the notability of a music award is determined by the extent to which it can or cannot be
  reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG (of which its article shows none at all.) As for this article, no other notability claim is being made here at all, and no evidence of reliable source coverage about him is being shown. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Seems popular in India. His Facebook page got nearly a million likes.
  talk) 18:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    St0n3 BG: I don't see a category for that in either GNG or MUSICBIO. Could you show me where that's a criterion for keeping a subject or for notability? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. There may exist sufficient coverage in the Punjabi language but I do not speak that language. Looking at the Punjabi version of this article, it includes only two sources, one of which (5abimusic.com) is listed as a deceptive site and the other (punjabspider.com) is the 5,455,534th most popular site in the world according to Alexa. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Research Building

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

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

Nondescript university building. No indications of notability, implied or otherwise. Deserving of a paragraph in the universities article. Kleuske (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and selectively merge to University of Texas at Arlington#Campus and architecture. Do not redirect because the name is so generic that a redirect would only misled users. Building shows no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't redirect. Because though the building deserves mention on Wikipedia but no content enough for whole standalone article
  WP:SIGCOV about it to warrant that. I also are with the thought above that redirect is not appropriate here due to the genericity of the name. So new section in the main article is more appropriate thing here. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations

Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references that suggest that this annual meeting of representatives from various youth organizations is notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 04:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Power tagged it for speedy, but I declined it for a couple of reasons. (1) As a multinational event, it's more likely to get coverage both because it's relevant to more publication markets and because multinational events, even small ones like this, tend to be more interesting and get more coverage. (2) Most of the participating organisations have articles. A meeting of twenty-ish notable organisations is more likely to be notable itself: if the constituents get coverage individually, their meetings are also more likely to get coverage. Neither of these is reason to vote "keep", so I'll not vote here; I just thought an explanation would help. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Cannot find an assertion of notability, at least with English sources. !dave 18:17, 29 November 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. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creationsofla

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

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

Fails the notability criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Sources are credits for photos published in magazines, the subject of the article is a contributor to the sources, not the subject. IOW: you're notable if Vogue writes about you, but not if Vogue publishes a photo that you took.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass general notability guidelines Thalium (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very clear cut example of a promotional CV type page that is not supported by good references. Non-notable. 2607:FEA8:D140:8D0:3C6E:8110:7899:7786 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violation of
  WP:PROMO. Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williams (baseball)

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

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

This is actually the second nomination. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Williams in 2007, when the article was kept for what I believe was a flimsy rationale.

The subject does not meet

It's telling that of the two sources that are meant to establish his notability, this one about the firing of the coaching staff doesn't even mention Williams, and the article suffers from neglect.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Our consensus about bullpen catchers has changed in the last 10 years. They are not considered coaches according to the rules MLB uses that dictate how many in uniform coaches a team can have. They are not included in the BASE/N presumption of notability granted to coaches, because most of them don't have sources to establish GNG. This individual is no different in that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines, at least from what's seen here. If there's something else about him that can be dredged up, I'm fine with re-creating the article. I just have a hunch there's probably something out there, but I couldn't find anything. South Nashua (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Leeds

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

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

Not much in the way of reliable sources, reads like a promotional piece. MrBill3 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of third party coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No RS, lots of OR, etc. Created by SPA with no edits outside this article. Likely vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 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. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Ashfaq

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

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

Does not meet notability criteria of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. this BLP fails to meet
  WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- qualifies under G11 and per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Furqanrizwan. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on the English spelling this person is NOT notable but the review is not complete without checking the Urdu spelling. I recommend relisting for additional scrutiny. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB)

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This looks to me like a n unremarkable business; references are about the projects it has worked on or routine covereage TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,TheLongTone. Revised the article for notability clarity. Added Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, and Denver Business Journal references. Would argue most notable press coverage is firm's generation of Crane Index as it is widely referenced in business news as key barometer of economic vitality via new construction metrics. Vincent Wedge (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I buy that; withdrawing nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panoz Avezzano

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

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

Speculation about not yet created car,

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete Fails GNG and what I would consider notability for an unreleased unvehicle. TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per bushranger L3X1 (distænt write) 16:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not a "not yet created car", but is currently in competition, and winning: [1]. The road version is in development, but between the racing and the development I believe there is more than enough to satisfy
  should have been done before nominating. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As per artofgears.com, it has been more than a year since, "Sep 29, 2016 ... At an event at the Panoz museum in Braselton Georgia, Panoz took the wrap off its newest design."  The car was being raced by 30 March 2017.  WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web doesn't require reading to verify existence, as there is a line of four "Images of Panoz Avezzano".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I did WP:BEFORE D1, and also checked Google Images.  Nothing more is needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Quetta District

List of educational institutions in Quetta District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is just an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list could be a useful compromise especially in the current deletionist climate. if the schools can be sourced to be verifiable and exist, then there is no reason to delete this. Please consider this as a compromise.Egaoblai (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - lists are for navigation not for indiscriminate collection of information. Störm (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because this needless and indiscriminate duplication, it already exist here and possibly also in category, and they don't contain any special content, nor is the list large enough to merit standalone page. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Kochuveli - Mangaluru Jn Antyodaya Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Nominating this not only as it barely has any content (only 1k bytes+), but the notability and usage is rock bottom, with only 5 edits (not including the addition of the afd) it has only 56 page views including mine, furthermore it only has 2 links to it, which suggests a Low notability. — Preceding

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding on to the first, a Google news search threw up a paragraphed timetable which the Service section in the article was mostly (but not completely) copied from.-

talk) 09:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy keep.
  WP:NOBODYREADSIT. Article size is not a reason for deletion. Neither is a lack of incoming links, nor a low number of hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep because of invalid reason for deletion; see valid reasons
  see why. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep NPASR  This should have been closed days ago.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons: Tapped Out - Themed Updates

The Simpsons: Tapped Out - Themed Updates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Creating a new page for deleted content is not acceptable. The page creator has stated that the history of the game is useful for long-term players, but this is not a fan site and I do not believe that the updates to this game meet our standards for notability. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Unilaterally deleting content without discussion which has been built up on this page over 4 years is unacceptable.

  Taking the argument about not being a fan site to its logical conclusion would mean that only a bare minimum of information should be provided for any topic eg TV series, and any information about individual episodes, should be deleted for all such topics. I don't find this acceptable in either case. JohnI (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We have some guidelines and policies you should probably read, including

  sourced to independent, secondary, reliable sources. Do you have such? It is almost-certainly not appropriate for its own article regardless. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Violates
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This kind of info belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia. I don't see how this compares with, say, a plot summary of the work in question. It's entirely just cruft that is solely relevant to fans or players._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't see how it violates NOTDIR. Routine updates sometimes receive coverage in RS sufficient to indicate inclusion in the article on the video game itself. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's not appropriate to take
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG (point #4). That's not what encyclopedias do. If one wanted to add a section to the parent article about substantial/notable updates that received coverage by third party sources ( ie your IGNs, Eurogamers, etc. writing article about how good/bad the Halloween 2016 update was.) it could be included in the main article. But listing every update, in a stand-alone article or the game's article, should not happen. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above. This is excessive, unnecessary, and almost entirely unsourced.
  π, ν) 21:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred's House

Fred's House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An unsigned band with little media coverage beyond mention as a support band and a couple of reviews. The fact that the article was created by a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have just browsed the refs in the article and they don't pass GNG or NMusic. A number of the refs support their single "Fine life" which on their official channel on Youtube has 90 views. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG, NMUSIC, the SPA/COI concerns also weigh in for deletion. South Nashua (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Express-Historie

Berlin Express-Historie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little evidence of notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes
  WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is not a notable book; the NYTimes reference in the article doesn't appear to mention the book or the author.
  π, ν) 21:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. Good to see collaborative editing working as Jimbo intended. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Gary Callier

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

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

Delete: Questionable

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not see how she meets the notability standard at this time.
  WP:GNG after Megalibrarygirl got the sources out from behind a paywall. Awesome job, Megalibrarygirl! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I found a lot of great articles about her career over time and in depth. I've added them to the article. She passes GNG. I'm going to @Gidonb: to look at the new information which was all behind a paywall (you can see it now via Newspapers.com). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]