Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 22: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:10, 30 June 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 21 June	23 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veluna

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flanaess. No sign of general notability, no sources other than D&D reference materials. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not include 3rd party citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flanaess. This is just a more specific page on a more broad topic that is notable, so I don't see why I should favor deletion over merging. Power~enwiki's suggestion for a redirect is a bit unusual, considering the fact that there is no information on Veluna itself on Flanaess. Borderlandor (talk) 05:43, 18 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) 23:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if necessary, merge, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flanaess per K.e.coffman. Zero citations = WP:V/CITE Fail = Nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 29 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. Closing as "keep", as there are no arguments in favor of pure deletion. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller

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

Found one source, subject does not have any notability for himself. Fails WP:BIO. Here is the source: http://hudsonriverzeitgeist.com/home/2016/7/3/a-trip-to-the-forgotten-birthplace-of-american-historys-richest-man Rogermx (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added 12 book sources - and there are more. He clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rockefeller family. Being the "father of the Rockefeller family" does not make him notable. WP:INVALIDBIO says "relationships do not confer notability". Also see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He meets WP:SIGCOV - so he's clearly notable. Numerous book references, covering him in depth (several paragraphs), going back at least a century (from 1905 or so - and possibly earlier references can be found). Quoting from WP:INVALIDBIO - That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A);. In this case significant coverage has been found on A. Why do people find him notable? Perhaps due to giving rise to the Rockefeller line - however that is true of numerous medieval nobles. e.g. Ansegisel,Anna of Brunswick-Grubenhagen-Einbeck, Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox, Bertrand III of Baux, or Louise-Jeanne Tiercelin de La Colleterie. As significant coverage exists of him (much more so than many nobles which have an entry) - he meets the criteria for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not very persuasive. If there is significant coverage, then he is notable. If there isn't, the fact that pages exist for other equally less-than-notable people only means that more deletions need to be proposed, not that this page needds to be retained - it should stand or fall on its own merits, not the deficits of other pages. So, the question is, do the added sources represent significant coverage, or just passing reference? Agricolae (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding significant coverage, my main argument rests on coverage in Chernow 2007, Flynn 1933, and Nevins 1940. The first chapter of Chernow, called the Flim Flam Man is about William, Godfrey's son, and discusses Godfrey across 6 or so pages, covering most of the material in this article. So while the chapter is a biography of William, Godfrey is a significant character, not just as Williams father, but also as a distinct individual. Chapter 1 of Flynn is titled Michigan Hill and is about Godfrey and William, discussing Godfrey across 5 pages or so pages, again covering most of the material in this article. Nevins 1940 is available o google books only in snippet view, but again covers most of the material in this article across multiple pages. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes NPOV, NOR, V, N, etc. At the outset the article was basically genealogical, but it seems to me now to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned things up a bit. I've also removed a number of the references User:Icewhiz added, leaving 6 which I think are pretty strong and one more which is genealogical and which provides birth dates for their children. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to add that just because an individual's fame is inherited, does not mean his notability cannot be established. This individual is certainly only famous because his grandson was famous. But given that he is himself famous and has received significant coverage in multiple sources, I do think he is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I appreciate efforts to add more information. I would change from Delete to Merge with the Rockefeller Family article as a good solution. I still do not believe it merits its own article. Rogermx (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By merits, do you mean that you do not believe that the coverage in reliable sources is significantly in depth? Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm skeptical that there is any material here that should be merged into Rockefeller family. That page currently mentions Godfrey and is already very long and somewhat well organized and adding detail into the life of a family member who did not achieve fame except through his famous progeny would not add to that article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rockefeller family. I might have said delete, as his only claim to fame is inherited from his grandson. However, a summary of this article will usefully fill out the very brief "family background" section there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 18 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) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the "Michigan Hill" chapter in the Flynn book, it describes Godfrey in a few brief sentences as a shiftless, thriftless alcoholic who moved to Tioga NY, made a bad land deal and had children. That is it. The chapter is really about Bill Rockefeller. It does not constitute significant coverage of Godfrey. Rogermx (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rockefeller family as per above. There are issues with the notability of the subject. For notability multiple uses of the same source counts as one and passing mention (not "significantly in depth") does not count. The article states as fact that the subject was born in Albany, New York but the references give multiple possible locations as the birth place is not actually known. "Notability (people)" states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.". And having a son that became famous does not match any of those. That slippery slope would mean all Rockefeller's and Avery's would get an article. All we would need to do is list the same sources 3 or 4 times, a genealogical source (for birthdays) and point out the relationship to the famous person. Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2017 (*UTC)

Comment - The keep !votes relate to GNG. Rogermx, the nominator, disagrees with me that Flynn's coverage of Godfrey is in depth enough to satisfy GNG, which is fine. I think if a published book discusses and individuals character, his career, and his family, as Flynn does, that is quite a bit of depth. The other !votes are concerned that his most important claim to significance is through his progeny, which is valid and reflected in the article, but such a claim to fame may not always lead to notability issues. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia - we should be there when someone looks up someone due to their more famous descendants - particularly when passing GNG. An encyclopedia query of "who the heck was Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller?" is an entirely valid one for someone reading about the numerous Rockefellers. The answer does indeed turn out to be a mostly nobody (He did however name a tract of land that became a state forest - Michigan Hills NY State Forest) - but that nobody passed GNG - as there is copious, well written, and detailed information about him - well beyond what we have on several other figures. We have many nobodies that pass GNG. If they do - they should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not meant to be the source of all information. If it were, we would be adding millions of people who appear in obituaries, census records, birth announcements, etc. etc. Personally, I don't believe in adding aristocrats to Wikipedia simply because they came from a "noble" family. Rogermx (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The query "who the heck was Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller?" is best responded to with a redirect to Rockefeller family. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Icewhiz. MB298 (talk) 07:12, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with zero !votes. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Jamaica, Ottawa

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

fails WP:ORG. all this confirms is the high commission exists. and embassies are not inherently notable. also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is there a policy on embassies? An embassy is not an organization, it's a place of residence and work for a head of state. It projects the authority and influence of that head of state into the surrounding area, and carries at least as much influence as any organization or person that reports to it. I would keep all of these. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing inherent notability when there is no guideline which says that. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are these supposed to be notable as physical buildings, or as diplomatic missions? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as diplomatic missions they have no inherent notability as many have been d well deleted. If the building is proven notable then they may be notable. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of them appear architecturally notable: as far as I can tell, they're either office suites in larger buildings or ordinary houses. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 23 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) 23:46, 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 redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace). There appears to be a fairly strong consensus against keeping the article at this time. What to do with it is not as clear. However, a preponderance favors redirection which I think works. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CKUR-FM

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which received a license from the CRTC to launch literally yesterday, but has not yet actually commenced broadcasting. WP:NMEDIA, however, does not permit advance articles about stations that still only exist on paper -- it requires that the station is actually on the air before it qualifies for an article (per the criterion about "established broadcast history".) In the meantime, the license can certainly be discussed in Media in Vancouver and the article on its parent company -- but there actually has to be a signal getting transmitted before it becomes eligible for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You'd have a point if it was a proposed radio station that had applied for but not yet been granted a license but given that a license has been approved and it will be going on the air within a year there's no reason to delete. We've had articles for radio and TV stations not yet on the air before for instance CJRU and CIND-FM both hard articles a year or so before going on the air. If the article is deemed premature then Merge with Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace) which is the company that owns the station. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. NMEDIA explicitly states that on the air is the condition, and "licensed but not yet launched" is WP:TOOSOON. It is not rare for a station to get a license but then fail to launch and have its license expire, which is why NMEDIA has been tightened up to require that we wait until the station is on the air. What we did the better part of a decade ago is irrelevant to what we do now — and ever since the comprehensive cleanup project in which we ended up having to delete hundreds of articles about licensed stations that never launched and had their licenses expire unbuilt, consensus changed and what we do now is wait until the station has launched.

Also, CJRU never had a premature article at all — The Scope already existed as a fully operational Internet radio service that was able to clear WP:GNG on those grounds regardless of whether it cleared our notability standards for AM/FM radio stations or not. It had an article for clearing GNG as an active internet radio service, not for being a licensed but as yet unlaunched terrestrial radio station. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And CIND-FM? In any case, do you have any objection to merging the article with Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace)? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CIND-FM falls under "what we did before all the phantom articles about stations that never existed forced consensus about this issue to change". As for merging, kindly note the part of my nomination statement where I explicitly stated that "In the meantime, the license can certainly be discussed in Media in Vancouver and the article on its parent company". Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then you are not requesting a deletion but a merge. Perhaps the AFD template can be swapped with a mergeto template then. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content that has to go into the company's article would not be a full verbatim merger of everything present here, but a brief one or two sentence acknowledgement of the fact that the license was granted. And furthermore, the call sign is only presumptive at this time — since it hasn't been formally assigned by Industry Canada as of yet, the fact that NNB used this call sign in its application does not mean they're necessarily going to get this call sign. (That's not a simple formality of a station automatically getting any call sign it wants — there are reasons why a station might not get the call sign it presumptively gave itself in the application process. See CKLU-FM for an example of that very thing happening.) So there aren't grounds for the call sign to be redirected to the company article either, which would also be required by a "merge" proposal. So for both of those reasons, I'm not requesting a "merger" at this time — the content is more than we can justify at the present time, and the eventual title isn't a done deal yet either, so the correct solution here is a delete, without prejudice against restoration once the station actually meets the requirements for a standalone article, not a merger with significant content or title retention. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to their CRTC submission, Industry Canada has granted them the call letters. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the source present in the article says that exactly nowhere. Secondly, the CKUR-FM call sign doesn't produce any search results in the IC call sign database, which it would if it had already been assigned to them. And thirdly, IC can't assign a call sign in advance of the CRTC approving the license — that's simply not how the process works. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it was in their submission to the CRTC:
"The proposed radio service is to be called Vancouver Urban Aboriginal Radio, with the call letters CKUR 106.3FM. CKUR call letters have been approved by Spectrum Management Operations Branch Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada/Government of Canada." Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, firstly, that would be reflected in the Spectrum database. But it isn't. And secondly, call signs are not and cannot be approved before the license is approved, precisely because of the possibility that the license might get denied. The company can certainly file an inquiry to see if the desired call sign is available, which IC/Spectrum will certainly respond to with a yes or a no, but IC cannot and will not reserve the call sign for an as yet unapproved license. If an existing station puts in a request to change its existing call sign to CKUR before the Vancouver station finishes the paperwork necessary to actually secure it (which, again, it cannot have done on a pending license application, but can only initiate now that the license has been approved...and is still not a mere formality that can be finished in two minutes flat, but in fact takes weeks) then that other station will get dibs on it. So a station doesn't own the call sign just because its own self-published correspondence about itself says that — what that letter says can easily be an overheated misrepresentation of "Spectrum Management Operations has confirmed that the call sign is available". It doesn't own the call sign until the call sign is listed as assigned in the public Spectrum database, which as of today it is not. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"what that letter says can easily be an overheated misrepresentation of "Spectrum Management Operations has confirmed that the call sign is available". While that's interesting speculation it's groundless as the List of Available Callsign For Broadcasting Stations does not have CKUR listed. Why? Because those call letters have been reserved by new Vancouver station. Earlier you said "the eventual title isn't a done deal yet", now you concede that the call letters have been reserved so I'm glad we're making progress. The suggestion that the call letters won't be CKUR and that therefore do not merit being the name of an article lacks merit. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the call sign cannot be considered "reserved" until the public Spectrum Management database brings up an assigned record for it. Prior to the license approval, all the company can possibly have done is to submit an inquiry as to whether the call sign was available — they can have done nothing to initiate the process of reserving it until the CRTC application was approved. But that only happened three business days ago, and the process of reserving a call sign takes more than three days to complete and so it cannot have been completed yet. Again: a call sign is not "reserved" until the Spectrum database brings up an assigned record for it, which as of today the Spectrum database does not. I'm not making any speculation here at all; I know how the process works. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why isn't the call sign listed as available on this list then? List of Available Callsign For Broadcasting Stations. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, and it doesn't matter. That document has no official status as proof of anything; it's just a convenience brochure that IC's SMO division makes available to prospective broadcasting applicants so they know what they're allowed to ask for. The only valid proof that a call sign has been locked in remains the existence of an assigned record for it in the SMO database. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Rather than delete, I think it would be more constructive to redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace) until CKUR-FM begins testing or until a month or so before their launch date, in order to preserve the page history. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another good Bearcat nom; until it is confirmed to be at the very minimum testing, we have to assume it has no notability and we have no deadline to post an article about this; we can also assume that there will always be the usual CRTC license negotiation so that they can get on the air with what they say, but will also appeal to listeners. Nate • (chatter) 05:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please be pithy. Be concise. Confine your comments to only that which is germane to the discussion. Cite policy and guidelines where possible. But above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace), at least for now: Obviously it is too soon for this station to have an article, considering that they have until June 2019 to go on the air (though they tentatively plan to go on a year before then) and there isn't any presumption of notability for as-yet-unlaunched stations. That said, the station is mentioned in Northern Native Broadcasting's article — and most of the content of the CKUR-FM article, which at this point is pretty much all to say about the station, appears to in that article, anyway. Because of that and the fact that the station does appear to have picked a tentative call sign (even if it hasn't necessarily been formally assigned by Industry Canada yet — but from what I've noticed, it's pretty rare for a new Canadian radio station to have its call sign be known this early in the process), a redirect might actually be useful and valid in this case. (I wouldn't entirely object to deletion, either, but overall the circumstances here are a bit different from other AfDs over the past year about too-soon station articles.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Folk Show

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

I found no significant coverage and both references are dead links. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only are the references dead links, they are to the web site of the radio station that broadcasts this show, so they wouldn't be independent sources even if we could see them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the rationale of deleting this article applies, then in my opinion it applies to the vast majority of radio programmes on Wikipedia. The articles regarding radio shows on BBC Radio 2 for example, have no greater depth nor could they be described as any more 'notable' than the article discussed. Also in my opinion any description in the context of a local radio show is also flawed, as The Folk Show has a wide listenership throughout the UK and overseas through it's transmission over the internet, and as such is important within the context of Celtic culture see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKcURVhoxY. It is part of the Category:Manx Radio programmes and also the Category:British music radio programmes, and as such fits the context of those categories. The article also conforms to the WikiProject Isle of Man. Harvey Milligan (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2017. (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. I have now repaired the links, so the references are now verifiable. I have also added citations which are independent of Manx Radio itself. This should answer Metropolitan90's argument for the page's deletion. I would also like to see the page retained for the reasons stated by Harvey Milligan: it is notable within the context of the Isle of Man, and it is a part of a wider series articles related to categories such as Category:Manx Radio programmes. I would hope that more pages will be created for this category in future. Manx James (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would like to know whether the book cited in the article now, The Nation's Station by Derek Winterbottom, discusses this radio show or whether it is just being cited to establish that Manx Radio is a commercial station. If the book discusses "The Folk Show", then it ought to be cited to support other information in the article, but if it doesn't discuss "The Folk Show", then it's not particularly significant as a source here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment/response. The book was cited to establish that Manx Radio is a commercial station. It is, indeed, not particularly significant as a source in this article as a whole, but the statement seemed in need of a citation, and the book looked the best one available. Manx James (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why so many people bother to try to write articles for Wikipedia, when such evident editorial arrogance clearly exists! Terry Dench 05:30 25 June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.49 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would suggest that thanks to the added links from Manx James the initial rationale for deletion (which in my opinion was tenuous at best) no longer applies. As stated previously, the article conforms to various criteria, one of which is the category: Manx Radio Programmes, which is currently being enhanced by further additions (see: Claare ny Gael). Harvey Milligan (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2017. (UTC)

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. Having been relisted and with the sole !vote being for deletion I'm going to treat this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Elson

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

While this producer has worked with significant acts, he fails WP:BIO with only passing mentions of him in articles that are about folks he's worked with. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The producer of an album is usually not notable for such. We would need more sources about Elson and to be able to write more text instead of just lists about him to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 21 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) 23:36, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Bloodoff

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Still fails WP:NHOCKEY ~~(and fairly certain it failed NHOCKEY in 2011 when it was recreated)~~. Yosemiter (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: was actually re-created in 2013 when the player hit 100 games in AHL and ECHL when that was the criterion for minimum games in professional leagues at that time (I had 2011 in my head from when he started his pro career, a common time for the article's creator to have made articles). However, my nomination still stands; does not meet the current, stricter NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Delete: Ironically, his credentials today would have met the 2011 standards, but with what he'd achieved by 2011 (to wit, nothing), he wouldn't have then. Certainly doesn't meet the current, tighter standards. Ravenswing 04:22, 16 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) 23:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning toward weak keep~~ - Neither NSPORTS nor GNG is an absolute rule. They are created to tell editors how to determine notability/importance of this person and his career. I searched for the news articles about this person. According to this article, the guy renewed his contract with the Florida Everblades hockey team. ~~This shows that his notability is not temporary; it is sustained (proven substantial).~~ Somehow, WP:WHYN and WP:NPF explain attempts to limit number of articles about low-profile persons, especially to prevent Wikipedia from being used as means of promotion. ~~However, even when the person fails GNG, the person may still be notable, and WP:V#Notability is already met.~~ --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 06:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC); partially struck, 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Notability is not temporary is only used if the person was ever actually notable. In the second recreation in 2013, he met the looser criteria NHOCKEY guideline. Since then, it was found that many hockey players who met that guideline did not meet WP:GNG and as such, NHOCKEY has become much stricter to weed out those that are not up to snuff. (read User talk:Dolovis for a list of deleted articles on the low-level player pages he created and one of the primary reasons NHOCKEY had to become stricter.) Yes, it is possible to still be notable and not meet the standards, but GNG is usually the go-to standard for notability. The source you brought up is about a player signing, something that is a run-of-the-mill press release from a local paper and what hockey would define as routine coverage which is usually not suitable as a source for proving notability in GNG (must have multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources). If your argument to keep is "even when the person fails GNG, the person may still be notable, and WP:V#Notability is already met", then my response is that notability (after GNG and WP:V) was never met to begin with. Yosemiter (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about delete per what you said... and WP:NPF? Creating an article about a non-notable person would violate not just GNG but also BLP, especially WP:NPF. Also, I bet it would be used as means of promotion, which is discouraged. --George Ho (talk) 14:14, 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) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)

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

Nom after failed PROD. Page was created as a spinoff of a now-deleted core page that was just an arbitrary collection of poorly referenced genealogical trivia regarding the British royal family.

This page begins with a false claim that the British royalty are somehow special in their ability to trace to antiquity (sic - the line given traces to medieval times, not antiquity, and millions of people can do this), then proceeds to show an arbitrary set of descents that have something to do with Anglo-Saxons (or not) and the current Queen (or not). It shows Elizabeth's descent from Alfred the Great through the pre-Conquest kings of England, but also another arbitrarily-chosen line through the counts of Flanders (ignoring thousands of other possible lines from Alfred that could be shown). It traces, for unknown reasons, the descent of the Scottish kings from the English royalty, that of Diana Spencer from a Elector of Brunswick, and that of an arbitrary medieval German prince, Philip of Swabia, from Alfred the Great.

The placement of (Anglo-)Saxon and Scot descents on a single page is a non-natural one. While one could argue that Elizabeth's descent from Alfred is central to her royal legitimacy, we already show this descent on Family tree of English and British monarchs and need not repeat it here also, nor would a merge improve that other page. As to the Scots, there is no legitimate rationale for tracing their descent from the founder of the English state, rather than from their own founder Kenneth MacAlpin (or even Fergus Mor). If we really are to have a royal genealogy page focusing on Elizabeth's claim to Scotland, it needs to focus on Scotland, and the best way to get there would be to TNT this one and start from scratch.

The page fails NOT:GENEALOGY, and lacks any kind of focus that would illuminate a specific topic. It has been flagged for a complete lack of sources for 5 years, with no attempts made to improve it. However curious one might find these descents to be, the current article's purpose is unclear and not well thought out, and because of the way it lumps together several independent genealogical phenomena, it can't really be improved because it isn't about any coherent topic. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot tell what this list is supposed to show. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The descent of the English (and British) crown is notable, but I am sure we have this elsewhere; likewise the descent of the Sottish crown. The other content is random and insignificant. For example, both Charles Prince of Wales and the late Princess Diana were descended from several illegitimate children of Charles II. That certain German princes are descended from children of Saxon kings is equally irrelevant. The royal families of Europe were heavily intermarried, so that it is possible to construct many pedigrees that might show all sorts of things to illustrate potential alternative descents, resulting from counter-factual rules of inheritance, but these are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you want non-notable counter-factual rules of inheritance giving potential alternative descents, we have that already too: Alternative successions of the English crown. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Monarchist equivalent of fancruft. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Seems to be Royalist special pleading. DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 28 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 Speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://growthluxuryhomes.com/our-team/. Non-Admin closure.

Philippe K Ziade

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

Heavy WP:PROMO tones with his name printed in bold 4 separate times on the page (in addition to issues with the style and tone of the article and the manner in which external links are used). I also wasn't impressed with the reliability of secondary sources used and needed to meet WP:BLP standards. Comatmebro (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article texting format have been updated and bold removed. Dear, (User:Comatmebro) can you contribute to the editing? Philippe Ziade is a very well known Real Estate entrepreneur and there's a second Philippe Ziade on Wikipedia creating confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawad00 (talk • contribs)

Delete - non notable individual. Vanity page. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article texting format has been updated, restructured, links and references organized with adding of Dates, titles and sources. - Comment added by Rawad00 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 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 merge to Outer Plane. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Waste

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Fancruft referenced to primary sources, not an ounce of notability outside them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Outer Plane. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AFDcruft. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Outer Plane seems appropriate given that we have that article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 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 redirect to Inner Plane. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Energy Plane

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

This article fails to establish notability, TTN (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no indication of notability, what's to merge? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- completely unreferenced fancruft with no indication of even in-universe notability, let alone real-world. No suitable content to merge anywhere. Reyk _YO! 12:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inner Plane. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (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 Speedily deleted as a copyvio. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio University 2017 Student Protest

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

Non-notable localized student protest fails event notability guidlines WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE, etc. Heavy reliance on primary sources violates WP:NOR. GretLomborg (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio of this, report [1]. - TheMagnificentist 16:42, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EScreeningz

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

This page does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. Furthermore, it is an orphan and seems to be an advertisement. Finally, the website's domain name cannot be reached. Snood1205 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and North America -- no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. A Train^talk 15:31, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Ramada Hotel drownings

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems notable and as the event took place well before wikipedia was founded, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really seem to apply as this article was written in 2011, 18 years after the event occurred which really doesn't seem newspapery to me. Furthermore, due to the three years of media coverage following the event, I'd say that it seems to be relatively notable. Snood1205 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wcquidditch's argument is persuasive: obviously there was ongoing news coverage, and from high-quality sources. Obviously some of the detail needed to be trimmed back -- I can't imagine what's pertinent to the subject about the number of siblings or that the father lost his job post-9/11 -- but I'm hardpressed to find merit in the nom's argument. If he objected to too much irrelevant biographical information, he could have trimmed that out, as I just did. Nor is there a single element of NOTNEWS that's violated here. Ravenswing 23:43, 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) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of traffic reduction on environmental health risks

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

This article is an essay, and thus falls under WP:NOTESSAY. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply NOTESSAY under our basic standards. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and possibly WP:SYN. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is too much like an essay. It picks on specific primary research to report, and it does not have suitable content to rename or merge elsewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 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 03:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banday

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

Doesn't meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely existing does not make something notable. It needs to have been covered in sources. None are even shown for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of why it's notable. LAroboGuy (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EH9 6632

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

I can find no reliable evidence that this object even exists. There are a handful of social media entries and youTube videos, but that's about it. Even those could well be copied from list of largest cosmic structures which contains this object with no citation. Zero research published on such an object. I don't even know what the EH9 catalogue would be. Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's absolutely no RS for this. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has no mention on Google scholar, so it is very likely a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only find this in unreliable sources; probably a hoax. Loooke (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single reliable source that mentions EH9 6632; this page is very linkly a hoax so, It is probably Caelum Supercluster which is the largest known supercluster with 910 million light-years. Lithopsian is right and also I saw some videos that mentions EH9 6632.

Ex:Size comparison of everything alternative version, 행성크기 우주 Universe in Perspective Update 2010 , Best size comparison universe 2016 Part.3 Lastpart and Best Ultimati Size comparison universe 2017 & Zoom Universe OUT

Maybe EH9 6632 exists and is outside of the Observable Universe (Diameter=93 billion ly) but it is part of the Entire Universe (Diameter=At least 552 billion ly? (13.799 ± 0.021 billion (age of the Universe) x 40 ly) (or maybe Infinite?)). Thank you— ~ ZaperatorYnossPro44⁷¹ ★ ^✉ / _CONTRIBS ~ 11:00, 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 kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Sahara One

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 00:56, 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) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manslamming

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

This is a non-notable neologism. There appears to have been brief coverage (click-baity, not entirely serious, low quality journalism) of this concept but it is insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in the few sources that mention the term. Deli nk (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like "that's not a thing", as people say these days. Came and gone in a few days. "Manslamming" sounds like a good description of this kind of phony this-is-what-we-think-attracts-feminists-to-our-tampon-and-car-ads content that's been floating around the past couple of years. --Closeapple (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:NOTDICT, and lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:28, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by PTV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 00:57, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:02, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Pakistan

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:04, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:02, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:05, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:18, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nepal Television

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:05, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Zee TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:06, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Star Plus

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:07, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star One (Indian TV channel)

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

~~This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.~~ Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm mistaken – the only problem with this article would be a list of programmes. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I help you close this as withdrawn then, Binksternet? --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please. Thanks in advance, George. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television (India)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:07, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by SAB TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:08, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Raj TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:09, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:19, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Life OK

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:19, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:20, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel (India)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this NOTDIR if there are other articles with nearly the same content notably the American Disney Channel, American Cartoon Network, Freeform, ABC, etc.? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That question is in the vein of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but what we should be looking at is policy. The relevant policy is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If we find a bunch of articles that are in violation of policy, the obvious solution is to correct them – all of them. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:Other stuff exists, which is why I didn't oppose. It was a genuine question. Are articles such as List of programs broadcast by Freeform and List of Disney Channel series/List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel also in violation of NOTDIR? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are all in violation of NOTDIR. Ideally, the articles about broadcasters should have sections where they discuss the importance of notable shows that have been aired, for instance original shows that the broadcaster created, or special shows that were discussed in other media. A simple list of scheduled shows is not allowed. So in your example, the Disney Channel article should (and does) talk about the shows that were important. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that puts a damper on things because that's a lot of articles. NBC, ABC, Fox, CBS, etc.... Should I get started or will you? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the AfDs I filed today, all related to the NOTDIR policy. I am only partway through the list found here, which should also get deleted if all its components are deleted. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all mentioned I'm not going to vote in every single AfD here because this should be raised at ANI or another forum and separating all of these is just a hassle and inconvenience to anyone at AfD looking to decide on these 'list of's. Please consider a different mode of nominating these articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 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 kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by DD National

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:20, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Colors

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:21, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:22, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by BIG Magic

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:22, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by &TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:22, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by JTBC

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:23, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:23, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:24, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Korean Broadcasting System

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:24, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Arirang TV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:25, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Tokyo Broadcasting System

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:25, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ViuTVsix

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:26, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by TVB

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:26, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Channel V

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:26, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Star World

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:27, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (Southeast Asia)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:27, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nat Geo Wild

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-encyclopedic directory. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:28, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by National Geographic

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:17, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by MTV in Asia

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:16, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Fox Channel Asia

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:16, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Science

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:15, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:15, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:14, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC

AfDs for this article:

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:14, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Animax

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:13, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:13, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hallmark Channel

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:13, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Toonami

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim listings should be for whatever programs were broadcast in those blocks, and premieres of any new shows. That's about it. People want to know if a certain program was broadcast on the channel, whether it aired original programming or a rerun/syndicated from another channel, and then when it first premiered. It doesn't need that detailed scheduling. Time changes can be expressed in the history section of the Toonami article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:12, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:12, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN

AfDs for this article:

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 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 kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:12, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by GMA Network

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:11, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MTV

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:10, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney XD

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:00, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:10, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTDIR would apply if the page's content were "Nickelodeon will be broadcasting show XYZ next Tuesday at 9:30pm", but that is not the content of this page. This is part or a series of related lists (List of programs broadcast by Nick Jr. List of programs broadcast by Nick at Nite List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons List of programs broadcast by TeenNick List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon List of Nickelodeon short films) that are mostly ok; some minor cleanup needed, but no reason to delete. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:00, 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 Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network

AfDs for this article:

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY only loosely seems to apply and is easily outweighed by the utility of this article. Artw (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 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 kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Geo TV

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

The entire list is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all other nominated "List of programs broadcasted by X" are not violations, as they are not TV guides or any other type of list that is defined as violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY Searingjet (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:09, 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 no consensus. Despite the discussion having been open three weeks and relisted twice, no consensus for any action, administrative or otherwise, taking place on this article has been established. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delightsome Land School

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

promo piece for a non notable school with unverifiable sources; A search throws up nothing of note except for routine stuff directories and social media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Domdeparis (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to participate in this AFD but since no one is !voting I decided to give it a shot. A few weeks ago, I would have given this article a keep vote per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME since there seem to be some routine coverage which is unusual for an average Nigerian primary school. But with the RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME, I'm not sure I know the standard for keeping Nigerian schools anymore. However, with notable celebrities being involved with the school, its proprietor base commenting on national issues, and some other impressive mentions online. I can't vote for its deletion. 1 2 Darreg (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: there are probably sources about it that aren't very searchable in english, and Darreg gives some good arguments that make me think that it is probably better for the wiki to keep this article rather than deleting it. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Seven Network

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

The entire article is in violation of Wikipedia policy seen at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says that Wikipedia cannot be a programming guide for broadcasters. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problem with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, a previous deletion discussion ended in "delete." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Network Ten. So that article is obviously a recreation of deleted material. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects pointing to these deleted articles would also have to be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A similar deletion discussion is underway regarding TV programming templates. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 22#Template:Australian television channel programming templates. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Lists of notable historically significant programs are not in breach of NOTDIRECTORY. Did you even read it? "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable" which is exactly what these all are -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:30, 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) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias T. Gebb

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. This is based entirely on primary sources, such as his own personal website and the website of the record label he owns, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all -- even the one thing that looks like a reliable source, Modern Drummer, actually turns out to be a piece he wrote about himself. All of which means that none of the sources present here are independent or notability-conferring ones. This is also a followup recreation after an earlier version, identical but for the addition of the self-written Modern Drummer source, was prodded for exactly the same reasons. So, unfortunately, it's AFD this time and maybe a dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:MUSICBIO does not pass basic GNG. FITINDIA 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with the rationale of user's Fitindia and Bearcat . I looked at the article, reviewed the sources listed, and performed a Google search. I can find a lot about the subject, that is "from" the subject, like social media sites twitter and facebook, his "official" website, or the record company he owns. Otr500 (talk)

Additional comments: When an article is created using only, or even mostly, self-promoted references and sites, there can be no assumption of bad faith if someone questions a possible conflict of interest. This could be a paid editor or anyone too close to the subject to be objective. The result is an advertisement article, not presented from a neutral point of view, that is contrary to one of the "Five pillars" of Wikipedia. Also, per Bearcat, I would see about pouring some salt on the subject. Otr500 (talk) 15:34, 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) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lively (software)

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

no notable software with only trivial references DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:COMPANY nothing there to prove notability. FITINDIA 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only promotional and non significant. Light2021 (talk) 19:24, 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 and redirect to Lorne Greene. Not a case of G11 since that does require the text to be promotional not the intent but that does not change the fact that notability was not established. Turning it back into the pre-article redirect seems uncontroversial though. So Why 10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Doom

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage of this band to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Was a redirect to Lorne Greene (one of his nicknames). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is a redirect to Lorne Greene's page for his nickname, more relevant than an established musical group who merely want to have a Wikipedia page? Wouldn't a "non-linked" mention of Lorne's nickname be sufficient? Voice of Doom is a legitimate act with multiple website mentions and reviews. They're also a licensed brand available on iTunes.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Speedy delete. History section is fairly substantially similar to http://pyrrhicvictoryrecordings.com/voice-of-doom leading to the suspicion of copyvio and/or spam. The rest of the "references" are unimpressive. I see this as little more than a coatrack for the links at the bottom. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--John Steinheimer (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)I must say, I'm utterly confused by a user who thinks someone's nickname warrants an entire Wikipedia page when it can be noted on the person's page itself. The user claims the artist's references are unimpressive while most of the musical groups I research have supplied less. Also, the claim that the artist's history section is fairly substantially similar to its record label is incorrect. I did reference the record label's information but has substantially been rewritten. The band's history is in fact, it's history, so it will have similarities. I admit I'm a newbie to creating Wikipedia pages but a debate over whether a person's nickname should overrule an established recording artist's Wiki page is ridiculous.--John Steinheimer (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This thing is getting a 65.1% score on Earwig's Copyvio Detector[2]. Whole paragraphs here are clearly plagiarised. This does not count as "substantially rewritten". It doesn't even count as "half-heartedly rewritten to obfuscate plagiarism".

Normally, I wouldn't gut an article while it is being considered for deletion but Copyright Violation is a special case. I am going to rip out the minimum to get that score down to an an acceptable level. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Score is now down to 16.7%[3]. Some sentences still show signs of being lifted with minor changes but the worst is gone. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also the author of that bio on the Pyrrhic Victory Recordings website, if that helps. I'm sure I can reword it further. Thanks for the heads up.--John Steinheimer (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That seems to replace the copyright issue with a conflict of interests issue. I'm upgrading my !vote to Speedy delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, speedy delete per G11 if Steinheinheimer is the one who wrote "group who merely want to have a Wikipedia page". The article cites two reviews by people from their own Pyrrhic Victory Recordings. Also, for people over a certain age, that happens to be a very famous nickname, much better known than some obscure band. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are either user submitted or small time, unimportant sources for establishing notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. Band is non-notable per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 28 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) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Noor Ahmed Choudhary

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JTtheOG (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 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) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the number of animals in Italy

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

Well, does this need an introduction? Winged Blades^Godric 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to figure out if this could in any way be a proper member of Category:Lists by population (non-human). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A ridiculous list; no one will ever use it for any purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook example of WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 11:05, 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) 22:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Vidal

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

Fails WP:Politician. No evidence of any notability. No evidence that this candidate has even been selected by the Conservative party. No reliable and independent references except that she exists and has been elected as a councillor for a ward in Bridgend Council Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsuccessful electoral candidate, failing WP:POLITICIAN criterion 3 and WP:GNG in the absence of substantial non-electoral coverage. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither local authority councillors nor unsuccessful parliamentary candidates get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL, but the purely WP:ROUTINE sourcing here demonstrates neither the volume nor the geographic range needed to deem her a special case over and above all the other local authority councillors and unsuccessful parliamentary candidates who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable political candidate. I agree that she does not meet WP:NPOL LAroboGuy (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iinazuke Kyoutei

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

Not a notable manga; coverage is lacking in either Japanese or English. An English search resulted mostly in scanlation sites or manga profiles, while the Japanese search resulted mainly in sites selling the manga or manga profiles as well. Does not appear to be licensed either. No prejudice against merging or redirecting to a list of manga published by Kadokawa, if such a list article exists. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~No JA Wikipedia article either.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC) updated 18:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is one [4] I'm not sure if this proves notability though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a page on japanese wikipedia. See the link[5], so i just make a page for english users because if it was against wikipedia's policy than it shouldn't be in japanese wikipedia also. -- Phoenix God (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is going to delete the article, Than i humbly request him to explain me that why did this page was allowed to be created in japanese but not english. -- Phoenix God (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia meaning that people can and do create articles that do not meet notability standards. On the Japanese wiki nobody has gotten around to placing that article up for deletion yet. We here on Wikipedia (English) have lots of biographies that are questionable so it would make sense that Wikipedia Japan is the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The manga is available on Kadokawa Shoten's official site. Check link[6].

Translate this page using Google Translate and you can see the description about Author and Publisher. -- Phoenix God (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you an example here: Samsung says that Samsung x is notable. While this could very well be the case we need other sources to say "yes Samsung x IS in fact notable for y & z reasons". Kadokawa Shoten saying things about itself doesn't prove notability, can you find some RELIABLE sources that are not just book releases? We need sources that give things like reviews for starters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, The Google Play Books also identify that "許嫁協定" is published by Kadokawa. Check link[7]. -- Phoenix God (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing it has though is release info, you need to find something with more substance than that. The main concern is notability here as we know the books exist and we know when they were released. In the grand scheme of things this doesn't tell us much, you have to look for things like; Did the books get good reviews? Were these books recommended? What inspired the author to make the series? Did the books win any awards? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest me some manga reviewing website that are valid on Wikipedia? -- Phoenix God (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Since this thread is rather long I think I might hat it so it will be easier for the person closing this deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Draft - It looks like @Phoenix God: would be willing to work on the article outside of the mainspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look up reception for this series? Did it even chart on Oricon? I'm not seeing any coverage in ANN either. I struck my previous statement concerning JA Wikipedia. Looks like the article was so new it wasn't linked yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This series is a sex comedy, probably that's why Oricon and ANN don't have any coverage about this. Phoenix God (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. ANN's encyclopedia at least has listings of adult and pornographic anime and manga. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to request a fluent user of Japanese on wikipedia to search for reference for this series, That's why please wait some more. -- Phoenix God (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this fandom post Oricon did rank the Vol (8) of this manga series last year. Please check link[8] -- Phoenix God (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ANN also identify that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (8) of this series 49th in August, 2016. Check link[9]. -- Phoenix God (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ANN shows that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (7) of this series 45th in February, 2016. Check link[10]. -- Phoenix God (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANN doesn't have an entry though for the manga, so it hasn't appeared on their notability radar. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that ANN doesn't have an entry for manga but according to the links above Oricon did ranked the manga. Does Oricon rankings are inappropriate on wikipedia? -- Phoenix God (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best-seller list meets one of the first items in WP:BKCRIT. But it needs another reviews and analysis, since it needs "two or more". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 29 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 07:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeyCDN

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

Typical promotional spam. Forgot that WP is not an advertising medium. Winged Blades^Godric 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like spam. Especially since the editor who created the page has been editing other articles to add links to keycdn.com. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the article incorporates promotional aspects, I would say it is salvageable. A more concerning problem is that it may not meet WP:GNG: I was only able to find one independent source --Hazarasp (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a service provider that is actually "a service of proinity, LLC.. Of the 6 references 4 are from the subject of the article. Builtwith, that the article shows lists the company as 4th, does not verify this that I can see. It actually, with a chart and listing, shows the company lower ranked. Datanyze shows the company with a 4.4% market share having dropped 12,084 websites, as 5th "out of 52 Content Delivery Networks technologies in Datanyze Universe" and 7th in the United States according to the same "universe". There needs to be more coverage than the company advertisement or "Datanyze Universe" or "Built with". I could find KeyCDN info from the company but not on a search. In the worldwide scheme of life it is a tiny company, with no notability for encyclopedia coverage, and mainly self-sourced that does make it an advertisement article. Otr500 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Also, while Hazarasp mentioned the madlemmings.com article as an independent source, it is actually from a blog post and therefore fails as a recognizable source and fails the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 30 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) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Moreno (DJ & music producer)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST notability. The article is chock full of unsourced claims. A search does not reveal any available sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - Mr X 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7). Non-notable, very likely promotional. No reliable sources can be located. - TheMagnificentist 13:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE (which I think applies to music producers), as well as WP:ANYBIO. --bonadea contributions talk 08:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article needs update and cleanup but that is not a reason for deletion. I also note that only Bonadea above gives any kind of reasoning for !voting delete. He is a very noted DJ. BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, do you have any sources to back your claim? I am unable to locate any about this individual. - TheMagnificentist 09:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a claim. A simple Google search gives the facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to expand on your !vote just simply Non notable is a irrelevant. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, Google doesn't show any reliable sources about this person. Only some Revolvy (Wikipedia mirror) and social media links are shown. Those aren't reliable. - TheMagnificentist 09:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable producer. The article is highly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Lander

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

BLP article that has been prodded twice, with no sources. scope_creep (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment what was "illegal" about the removed refs? Artw (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They were IMDB refs, user generated content, not under editorial control, and as such not allowed as proper refs, since they can't be verified correctly. But even using the IMDB links, I don't think he was notable, although it is up to the discussion to determine it. scope_creep (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Director of significant and well known film, Wrong Side of the Road. Multiple AACTA Awards (previously AFI) nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's won at least one AACTA/AFI award, as producer of Best Documentary in 1994 (50 Years of Silence). Plus nominations in other years including Wrong Side of the Road which is a very notable film. The article itself needs to be improved, there are probably references out there talking about Lander's long history in films about Indigenous Australian topics. Boneymau (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Directed historically important and notable film Wrong Side of the Road. Online coverage is limited as someone who made films in pre-internet days, but he is featured in several books and articles on Australian film and particularly the representation of Aboriginals. More recently he's worked at Special Broadcasting Service which has attracted a bit of coverage in Australian media trade press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 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) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Owen, Labour candidate for Aberconwy

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

Political candidate, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:1E, got some coverage (mainly tabloids) because she received sexually explicit messages while running as a political candidate. Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is gossip coverage. WP:NPOL is the appropriate test and she fails that. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN candidate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. DrStrauss talk 06:25, 28 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) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VISTE

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

non-notable local voluntary organisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A worthy cause but searches are finding little better than passing mention of VISTE as one of several recipients under a "Goals for Food" initiative; insufficient independent coverage to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing is hereLight2021 (talk) 19:31, 29 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) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khawas Khan Golra Awan

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

no reference cited. Saqib (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for English language references and didn't find anything that shows he may pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are already a problem, but the last chapters don't make any sense.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 12:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Crystal Maze episodes

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

Other lists of gameshow episode articles have been deleted so this should be no different. Already has descended into made up stuff (improvisational lore) and inaccuracy (using rounds instead of zones). Fails W:NOTSTATS Dougal18 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no real-world notability of episodes of a gameshow. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of that article, I understand the notability requirements but wasn't aware we had an unwritten rule about not allowing episode lists for game shows. I'll just save the work and and go with whatever you all decide. -Rolypolyman (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, where are you getting your info. Post a reference so we know it's true. BeanoMaster (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

When it comes to notability, there is no clear consensus whether she actually meets GNG or not with multiple editors arguing both sides convincingly. The reason I decided to close this discussion rather than to relist it was that the majority of the discussion was instead about questions that this AFD cannot and should not decide but should be discussed first in a broader fashion with input from the whole community.

I am, of course, speaking of the question of paid COI editing. A number of editors have argued that this alone, no matter the merits of the article, is sufficient to delete the article. Which it isn't, at least how the policy is currently worded. While WP:PAID clearly mentions that paid contributions without prior disclosure are against the Foundation's ToU, there is nothing in this or any other applicable policy that supports the fruit of the poisonous tree arguments made in this AFD. Currently, as much as many people might hate it, there is no policy-based reason to delete an article just because it was created in violation of WP:PAID, especially when the same article was later cleaned up by other editors and - despite it's promotional origin - no longer violates any policies (in its current state); WP:NOTPROMO in particular does not actually say "delete such articles", it just says that all articles have to follow the policies and WP:COI "discourages" such editing without explicitly forbidding it.

As WP:PAID#Changing this policy mentions, that policy can be changed and judging from this discussion, there might be consensus to do so. However, this is not the correct venue to do so. If and when such a discussion took place, the article's fate can be re-assessed based on the outcome of this discussion.

Regards So Why 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryl Nields

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

No evidence of notability. Some of the sources cited aren't independent, some don't even mention the subject. Among the acceptable sources, I have found just one word "stylistically" that is about the subject. I've looked for better sources, and failed to find any. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With three awards, the Annenberg Space for Photography profile, and the inclusion in Portraits: The World's Top Photographers and the Stories Behind Their Greatest Images, meets WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands has a nasty taint of the promotional bio, but she has received media coverage over several years, with a couple of articles in American Photo magazine and some other coverage, as well as a lot of shorter articles on her photoshoots and famous images. None of it is super-lengthy, but I think there's enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I am not convinced by the notab. arguments.Pure promotional work. Winged Blades^Godric 12:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep The sources make it clear that this person passes the GNG. Any additional promotionalism (and some has been removed) can be (and is being) dealt with via normal editing. There is no policy-based reason to delete here. The sourced awards alone are sufficient to establish notability. Softlavender put it well above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IMP awards are not a notable award. Per the award website impawards.com "Each year we choose our picks for the best and worst movie posters of the year as well as winners in various genre categories, best taglines, best TV posters and more." They don't actually award anything, there's no prize etc. Similarly, a merit award for Celebrity Profile by the Society of Publication Designers means she was published in the society's Publication Design Annual. None of this establishes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable with in-depth coverage in RS. Annenberg Space for Photography includes "emerging photographic talents" so it's not clear the significance of that. I found this review of the Portraits book: "To put it succinctly, this is a book for people who are fascinated by celebrities. It can only be of passing interest to a photographer. This is a book of celebrity photographers taking photographs of celebrities. It's doubtful that any of these would have made it past a magazine editor had the subject not been a celebrity. I naively thought this was a book about portrait photography. Pass it by." This does not impress me. Everything else also seems minor. MB 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bad review is just as relevant as a good review for notability. We don't delete articles because someone has a bad review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that MB's argument here is that the bad review of the book means that it is not an RS. That is not a method we normally apply, I think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The review in question is an amazon review. It is not used in the article. It does however, support the view that Nield's work is not of encyclopedic interest. Mduvekot (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't believe the book is a RS. The National Enquirer is "published", but not considered a RS. This book seems to be the equivalent of tabloid journalism, published to make money off the fascination with celebrities.MB 17:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with MB's assessment on notability: the sources aren't in depth and don't demosntrate why the subject is significant. Even if it is a GNG pass, it is borderline. Additionally, GNG is only part of WP:N, the other part is the requirement that it pass the policy of WP:NOT. WP:NOTSPAM is relevant here. The article creator is a declared paid editor, which is fine under the WMF terms of use. It does not mean, however, that we aren't able to enforce local policy here. The editor created the page on a non-notable to borderline notable at best creative because they were specifically paid to create a Wikipedia article that would be indexed by Google. Their name makes it clear that they are a marketing person and they have declared that they were paid for this reason. While this might be okay under the TOU it is quite clearly a violation of NOTSPAM by any reasonable definition of the term promotionalism and seals the deal on deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and strongly. TonyBallioni's assessment above says all that needs to be said and quotes the relevant policies and guidelines. The creator, Marcomgirl (Marketing Communication), believes that the paid editing declaration as required by policy means free rein to make money out of the volunteers' work here - that's not the way the declaration is supposed to work. Sadly, I have also been attacked for my comments on this issue by a sysop who appears (to me at least) to support paid editing. I will be further investigating the motives behind Marcomgirl's other creations with regards to WP:NOTSPAM and if appropriate I will propose them for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That would, I presume, be me. I disagreed, strongly with a comment you made on the talk page of the creator here, and i said so. I did not think of it as an attack. Nor would I say that I support paid editing. If I could fully banish it, I would. Since no one can, I think it is best to induce (at least some) paid editors to comply with our terms by properly disclosing their status. As I understand the current policies and consensus on paid editing, once an editor does disclose properly, that editor should be treated like any other editor, with contributions evaluated on their own merits, regardless of who made them. That is what I ask for here. If this article had been created by a new editor with no indication of COI, or an established editor who tends to add pages about people with pop-culture affiliations, would the views in this discussion have been the same? I will grant that the notability here is not the most clearly established I have ever seen, and if this article is deleted the wiki will not tremble. But there seems to me a double standard at work here, and I think that there should not be. Perhaps I am mistaken. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While AfD is generally for debating the existence of an article, the process often provides good service as a place where sockpuppettry, spam, Copyvio, and other issuese are flushed out or brought to notice. I am of the general opinion that that the creator of this article in having declared her COI, is gaming the system. This does not man that I do not AGF - it means that I identify a clearly prmotional agenda for financial gain on the back of our volunteers' work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see a double standard here: we delete plenty of articles created within the terms of use by volunteer editors who are not paid for violating Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This can range from term paper like essays on one end advocating a specific point of view to clear promotion by a paid editor that has asked a question about how to get the article a client paid them to create indexed by a search engine and has a name that makes it clear they work in marketing. GNG alone is not enough to meet WP:N, and we delete plenty of term papers and dictionary definitions about things that would otherwise meet GNG. I don't see why we should make an exception to the policy for paid editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleteDoes not actually meet GNG. Very well written promo, but promo ne'ertheless.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the subject did meet the requirements of the General Notability Guideline, which she doesn't, that would only give the article the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article. In other words; she is probably notable, but not necessarily so. However, the article would still fail the What Wikipedia is not policy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Considering how weak the sources are and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that the article should be excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, this topic does not merit an article. Per WP:CREATIVE, which is relevant here, the subject is not an important figure, is not widely cited by peers or successors, is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, has not created a significant or well-known work, her work has not been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, her work has not become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The sourcing is exceptionally poor; the spin ref for example has only: "This photograph by Sheryl Nields", but is used to support the otherwise unsupported statement "Her early experimentation with a distorted perspective for her photograph of musician Beck featured in the July, 1994 issue of Spin was a precursor to her technique of using the photoshoot set simply as a starting point to capture portrait and fashion images from unique angles incorporating untraditional(sic) lighting elements". Mduvekot (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not great notability, but seems sufficient; some high-profile work, some awards, referenced to reasonably prominent sources. Style does not seem overly promotional at this point. Thus, if the product is something that meets our requirements, I don't think we can bin it based on dislike of the originator - who, until and unless the WMF finally grows a pair re paid editing, has not stepped outside the bounds of expected behaviour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added some words including about awards received but would be more comfortable with more ie. are Neilds' work held by any notable galleries/museums? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for cleanup of promotional material. The notability of the subject, Nields, is the question, and it appears to me that Nields does meet general notability guidelines. Whether the creator of the article has acted in bad faith or has tried to game the system is not the question in this debate. Please take any issues about the conduct of the author to WP:ANI or to ArbCom. (I agree that she seems to be saying that because she declared her paid status, she should be given the same treatment as a volunteer editor, and that is nonsense. However, the question is the notability of Nields.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the combination of promotional intent and weak sourcing is sufficient for deletion. Otherwise it would still be very borderline for ntoability. Inclusion in a book which the publisher called "notable photographers" is not evidence for notability. I see no evidence the awards are sufficiently major. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, DGG, inclusion in a book by a reputable publisher is precisely the kind of evidence we use every day to help establish notability at AfDs. It may not be sufficient evidence on its own, but it is not without value. it shows that a reputable publisher, aka a reliable source, thought her work worthy of note. We need not agree, but should not simply discount this. Indeed significant mention in a single book-length reliable source is often thought sufficient to establish notability with nothing more cited. Let us apply similar standards here. Any promotional content can be dealt with by normal editing, and in this case I am confident will be. The intent of the creator should not be relevant, only the notability and suitability of the subject, and the actual content of the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you say reputable publisher, do you mean RotoVision, the publisher of books like 100 Awesome Hair Days and Color Me Wild (with over 60 amazing geometric colour-by-number designs)? Then what is your criterion for reputable? Mduvekot (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per MB and TonyBallioni's analyses. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work is reviewed in several RS including LA Times and American Photo. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call this a review. It's a gift guide (it even says so in the title) , not a critical assessment of an artist's work. I get that out of fear that we ourselves may have a bias against the author because she's a paid editor, we should exercise an an overabundance of caution to treat the article as we would any other; on it's merits alone. I have asked myself if I'm just arguing for deletion because I am opposed to paid editing. But no. The sources are the trivial kind of writing that even serious news outlets routinely engage in as entertainment, not serious journalism. Just because it has references to otherwise notable sources like the LA times, does not mean that we ought to consider the gift guide as on par with serious art criticism. We wouldn't cite the LA times horoscope to verify that I am, in their words, A subdued version of my warrior self, empathizing with people instead of battling with them, would we? Mduvekot (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mduvekot, A guide to buying a book from the LA Times is pretty significant since it's a major newspaper, not some rag. The LA Times article shows attention from the media and establishes notability along with other reliable sources cited in the article. The fact that Nields' work made it to the attention of the LA Times and the other photographic magazines is significant. You've already !voted, and I have read your opinion. I've expressed my own evaluation of the article and disagree with you. Your tone in the comment above is also bordering on sarcastic. I know you are using this tone to make a point: however, I would ask that you tone it down please. This is a discussion, not a snark-fest. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A book buying guide in a newspaper is normally a promotional feature, and had no relationship to a substantial book review. Arranging that something "made it to the attention of" a newspaper is a PR technique. Even so, the LA times did not give it a regular review. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with policy. This was created without disclosure by a paid editor, in violation of the Terms of Use of the Foundation and of our paid-contribution disclosure policy, which, in case anyone has forgotten, is a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations (the editor did eventually make disclosure some five days later, after Uncle Roy asked her to). It was created for pay, for the sole purpose of promotion – that the tone is no longer promotional is immaterial, a neutrally-phrased advertisement is still an advertisement. This one, as DESiegel has noted on the talk-page, was also full of inaccuracies – what in plain English we would call "lies".

We don't permit undisclosed paid editing, and we strongly discourage COI editing of any kind; the only practical way we have of doing that is to undo COI edits. Notability is irrelevant here (though I'm not seeing it). Nuke it, but without prejudice to re-creation if a bona-fide volunteer editor can establish notability. Isn't that how the OrangeMoody articles were handled? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the tone is no longer promotional is highly materiel, indeed it makes the motives of the original creator totally irrelevant. A a neutrally-phrased advertisement might better be described as "an objective article" -- it isn't an advertisement at all. Inaccuracies can be cleared up by normal editing, and indeed would have been by now except for this AfD, as I was unwilling to be accrued of whitewashing by following up on my challenges while this AfD is in progress. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, I was thinking outside Wikipedia, of those advertisements by companies in the financial pages of serious newspapers, "the company has made profits of £n million. A dividend of x pence per share has been declared". It's neutral in tone, but it's still an advertisement even if it doesn't say "Baz is best, buy Baz" – and is sometimes headed "advertisement" to make clear that it's not part of the editorial text of the newspaper. We don't allow advertisements, even neutral ones. As for motivation, it is fundamental: a proper Wikipedia article is created with the intent of informing; this was created with the intent to promote, and – it seems – also to deceive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:42, 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 List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan (Space Ghost)

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

Delete or merge to List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Doesn't merit to have separate article. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom into Space Ghost or List of Hanna-Barbera characters. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've speedied this twice now. I'll settle for a redirect though. Deb (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as it fails WP:GNG as clearly as day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge as I am unable to find RS coverage, per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if anyone wants to keep the content, otherwise redirect as a plausible search term. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 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. Already done by someone else Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casio AW-49

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

Non notable. Doesn't merit to have article. just specifications of product Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge, though I'm not sure where). Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and I can't find any reliable independent sources for this. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 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) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of Anywhere

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

unremarkable film. Zero news hits. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mentions anywhere other than IMDb; as such falls well short of WP:GNG --Hazarasp (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it might just be too soon. There is at least one James Kicklighter that is notable. Delete or userfy if the creator wishes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete for now per being premature. Slated for a 2017 release, we have no sourcing showing it as released or receiving adequate coverage. If author wishes it back as a draft, that'd be fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 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) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RIJHAY SAMPSON

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

Fails notability. On googling found 2 pages of his own accounts on various social media Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the article and none found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by WP:SPA ProdByRE about a music producer known as "RE", previously speedy deleted A7. The biography is utterly mundane, using first person and seeking notability from others as well as the subject's Gofundme, and the Musical Style section is completely promotional: appropriate for the subject's social media pages, but not encyclopaedic. I am seeing nothing to indicate attained notability, by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ~ no evidence of notability. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:58, 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) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aksh Baghla

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

I was tempted to speedy this vanity page, but it's conceivably notable, so it's here instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. The references are to low-quality domains like "mensxp.com", and the Youtube numbers claimed (and uncited) aren't impressive. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG with reliable sources ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:05, 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) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwaiti Football Records

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

No context, no sources, no inclusion criteria Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 09:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate listing of stats Spiderone 10:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 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) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regene Lim

AfDs for this article:

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

This AfD is created in relation to the AfD that I have raised earlier, for more information please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Teo. In the earlier AfD, the page Damien Teo was deleted as the notability of the individual in question failed WP:GNG. I have also nominated other individuals, who are also non-notable child actors in Singapore, in the AfD and they have all been deleted as well. However, after the closing of the AfD, I realised that I have accidentally missed out another related individual, Regene Lim, who is another non-notable child actor in Singapore whose article should be deleted as well as she also failed WP:GNG. Therefore, I am relisting this AfD again, in relation to the earlier AfD to facilitate the deletion of the page Regene Lim on Wikipedia.

The reasoning and justification for this AfD is duplicated from the earlier AfD as it is the same, as follows:

A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actors' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability. DerricktanJCW (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Damien Teo AfD. - TheMagnificentist 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and prior AfD. No indication they pass WP:GNG as per searches, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 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) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Barton Harvey III

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

Only one source, and fails WP:GNG. This article was created by User talk:Hyungjoo98, who has created promotional articles for the Hill School, such as History of The Hill School, Wolfeboro Camp School, and numerous alumni pages. Dozens of his pages, including this one, have been nominated for speedy deletion, and he has deleted all of them. Peapod21 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough RS GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the moment, the current source listed is simply not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Spalding

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable entrepreneur and co-founder of a private tech company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes are are trivial mentions or PR driven. Created as part of a walled garden around Raise.com, which also includes another co-founder, George Bousis. Deleted in 2014 and recreated in 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as promotional puff. No improvement since last AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only parts of the article that are not clearly non-notable are instead clearly promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although the article is strikingly promotional in tone, there is a kernal of biographical details that can be flushed out of the sources. Regardless of whether there is WP:COI the subject probably meets the WP:GNG threshold.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:30, 30 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) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevan J. Korda

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

No sources; a bunch of WP:FRINGE content on the page. A PROD was declined in 2009 on the page. I only find coverage in biographical listings or in sources that appear to be copied from Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Passing trivia at very best; uncited fringe. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he might meet WP:JOURNALIST/WP:AUTHOR there are no sources in the article to establish this and I haven't been able to find significant sources in English. If someone produces sources in Serbo-Croatian I might change my mind. However as it is - the article is poor enough that there won't be any great loss if it is deleted even if he is notable in no-English.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 28 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. Unanimous agreement to delete, so closing this even though it was just relisted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Friel

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

Self created article referenced only to IMDB; list of credits there shows only minor roles, nothing to meet WP:NACTOR and nothing in article to suggest meeting WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:21, 14 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) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to meet WP:NACTOR and a largely unsourced BLP to boot. A Train^talk 15:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that the article was created by the person himself already rings alarm bells for me. There is only one source (his IMDB page) which is ineligible as it does not denote notability. Thus, the article and its subject fail to achieve GNGs and the article can be safely deleted. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:11, 30 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. Consensus leans towards delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Track and Field (band)

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

2nd Article - The Plight

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

Two versions of the same band. Notability is not inherited from one non-notable band to another. A slight step above WP:YAMB Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability for either article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 21 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) 03:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage such as BBC, Huffington Post, Allmusic bio, MOSH referenced in the articles, just passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I usually don't like third relists but there is so little discussion here that it seems warranted to try and achieve consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- neither one meets WP:NBAND & no sources that discuss the topic sources directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Plight passes criteria 12 of WP:NBAND having a live session broadcast on BBC Radio1. Track and Field have also been featured on BBC Radio1 to a lesser degree. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian women government ministers

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

Not a useful list. This is serving only to replicate the contents of Category:Canadian women government ministers -- but the standard needed for a list and a category to coexist is that the list is doing something different: extended content about the overall concept, providing a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories instead of directly containing all of its potential entries, being more completist than a category can be since a category can't hold entries that don't have articles to file, and on and so forth. But this list isn't doing any of those things: it's just listing the exact same entries (and not even all of them), which means it isn't serving any purpose that the category isn't already fulfilling. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original editor has been blocked for misbehavior, created a lot of articles requiring cleanup, and I see nothing in this particular list worth saving. --Lockley (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Canadian women government ministers. The nomination misstates what CLN says, and the difference from the category comes from the inherent characteristics of the format itself (CLN lays these out, in addition to noting how some editors/readers prefer one format over another so don't delete either just based on your preference for one). You instead need a special reason why a list shouldn't exist in tangent with the category rather than special justification for it existing. Notwithstanding that, the nomination also fails to consider the list's potential for annotation, direct sourcing, table formatting and sorting, and other alternate means of organization, all of which are functions a category cannot perform, and this consideration of potential is required by WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. "Delete because it has not yet been developed" is simply not a valid position at AFD, yet that's what I read above. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The list it totally redundant with Category:Canadian women government ministers and will be much harder to maintain and keep up to date. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:38, 17 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) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete -- the category is sufficient in this case and is more useful anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reorganize. Alphabetical isn't useful but there's every reason to have this list, ideally organized chronologically and with identifying information about which ministry each woman headed.--Carwil (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that my understanding of WP:CLN is somewhere between Bearcat's and Postdif's, but I do see this as a case when a list article is a reasonable addition to the category. A set of inclusion criteria would be easy to specify, and the list is not so large as to be impossible to maintain (regardless of whether someone is, at this time, maintaining it). In fact, we have a whole category Category:Lists of female political office-holders. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon consideration, keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Canadian women government ministers, and per the suggestions for article improvements suggested by postdlf and Carwil above. I have expanded the article a bit, including content that cannot be included in category pages, such as descriptions and references, and may expand it more if it is retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Northamerica1000. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:44, 30 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 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Åke Blomström Award (ABA)

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

no indication the prize for beginning journalists is sufficiently notable to have this list. I'm not even sure that any of it is suitable for merging in to thearticleo n the prize. I point out there is no article on the prize in the svWP. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the names are notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Note that we now also have the articles List of Requirements for participation in the Åke Blomström Award (ABA) and List of International Cooperation and Financing of The Åke Blomström Award, which seem even less notable. Manxruler (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Since this is an international prize, there is no point in creating a specific swedish wiki article. The winners, and the selection committee, are from many different countries, and most people don´t speak swedish. I have no affiliation with any of the involved organisations. I created the WPsw article about Åke Blomström as a consequence of contributing to the wikipedia article about my father. Not creating a swedish article of the prize was a natural choice. Swedish wikipedia has not deleted any article concerning the prize, that I know of. It is not inconceivable that all, or some, of the winners may merit a wikipedia article WP:CREATIVE, although this is beyond my current knowledge. Therefore also WP:DEMOLISH. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the none of the recent prizewinners has an article on either the enWP or the svWP, and that many of the earlier awards are merely travel grants for travel to other competitions. I do not see how an award almost exclusively given to non-notable people can be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment I don´t agree. The Fields Medal e.g. can be given to a young person who is not notable, but has done something important. I refer to this article as an example of the importance of the prize : http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/press-releases/2013/0306/374455-prestigious-international-award-for-documentary-on-one-programme/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123johanlindeberg (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 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) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NLIST and is essentially promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotion of what exactly? Promotion of radio? Then there should be no information about The Oscars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture. These programs are free to listen to, unlike commercial movies, as far as I understand. The national radio channels agree to send the programs. Participation at the IFC is in the interest of people working in this field. If you mean promotion of freelance radio producers then this is also promotion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Documentary_Feature 123johanlindeberg (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now realize that you might consider links, leading to any information source other than Wikipedia, as promotion. Even though you don´t state that explicitly. I cannot provide information about individuals on this list by writing articles about them, because of lack of knowledge, so I plan to remove "external" links. I have also included coaches on this list, but since they are not the winners, and should be considered as being part of the prize, I will remove them also. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to show this is a notable award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add some more external links, such as "Two Goldsmiths MA Radio alumni recognised in prestigious Åke Blomström radio feature award" 123johanlindeberg (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added links to those winners who have wikipedia articles written about them. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 10:01, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaby

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

I found nothing to show notability for this musician. The subject of the article is the creator. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 14 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) 02:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail WP:MUSIC with current references. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of government schemes in India. This AFD has been open for some time, and in my mind, the consensus is reasonably clear, even if the subject matter seems to be somewhat controversial. While I note that there are numerous !votes to keep the article, the arguments of those who have voted to delete carry stronger weight, specifically the arguments about neutrality. While there may be some suitable content that can be merged into the target article, I recommend this be done selectively and carefully, taking into account the issues addressed here regarding the neutrality of the content, and the quality of the sources. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 12:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Programs renamed by Modi Government

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, We already have List of government schemes in India. Razer^{Text me} 04:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is public interest to learn about this. I suggest we merge this into List of government schemes in India subins2000 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBy and large all government policies are based on similar principles of social justice and empowerment, however this does not mean all policies can be rolled into one and called copies of each other. Most of the mentioned sources do not in any way substantiate the claims of rename as alleged by the page. E.g. the Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account differs significantly from the Jan Dhan Yojna in terms of its execution parameters. VIz. The former was largely an advisory issued for PSUs wheras the latter firstly extends to the Pvt Sector as well and contains well defined targets and timelines. 2) Ultimately even though the former was in action since 2005, there was no action on the grounnd and no tracking mechanism to count the number of Accounts created. Till date there is no reliable citation to ascribe the accounts created under this scheme. There are such differences across multiple dimensions on several such schemes as claimed t be renamed. Hence there really is no reasons for this kind of work to exist on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amathur2k (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article mentioned by proposer User:Razer2115 doesn't capture the act of renaming by the current government. The number of Pageviews to the article shows that there is public interest to learn about this. Chirag (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, moreover why a simple list is being viewed and vandalized so much? -- Absharaslam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed This page captures important information and it should not be deleted. Though it can be expanded to capture name changes by other governments ago. Maybe it should be name as "Government Programs renamed by Indian Government" -- Hargup (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the subject of the article must be established in accordance to wikipedia's guidelines. As of now there are only a few independent sources given to support the claim of notability. Note that according to WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Four out of five articles cited to establish notability of the article are by the same author. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page specifically talks about program changes by the current Modi government. This is unique, not covered by any other page and the title of the page itself suggests that it is limited to changes by this Modi government only and not by others. For other govts, some other page can be created by others. As explained by Chirag there are enough pageviews to show that there is genuine public interest served by this page. This page must stay. hardthinker 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardwaj.ankur (talk • contribs) — Bhardwaj.ankur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This page should stay up. It keeps people informed. This page must stay. KeralaBlaster 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)— 50.64.160.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This page should stay. There is absoultely no reason for it to be deleted. All arguements against keeping the page seems to be highly illogical. What does it mean when someone says it's not just renaming but a lot of other things too. While I really don't agree, isn't name change also a part of it? And how does it change when we call a spade a spade?— 203.99.204.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Remove. I don't quite see the purpose of this article. Although unstated, the implication is that changing the name is the only thing that has been done to these programs, which is incorrect for most programs listed on the page. Further, many of the sources listed are either not reliable (opinion pieces) or do not support the claim that the program was simply renamed. If there has been significant revamping of the program, I don't think it makes sense to say that a program has been "renamed" just because an old one was replaced with a new one having similar goals. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This is another political propaganda page as can be seen from it's biased introduction and the title. It violates the general naming convention of a Wikipedia article (list) . What is this "Modi government?" WP:NOTNEWS - "Modi government" is an unofficial word used by *national* media outlets in India to Direct BJP government. The right reason for a deletion is WP:CFORK, a name change is not credible enough to have a separate article (list) on it. Mention of the name change in the parent article (list) does the work. FWIW, the above keep !vote gives an argument which we generally avoid on Wikipedia, *keep the article because it has views*. Jim Carter 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I said, the sources mentioned below are not actually sources but tabloids and opinionated press release which does not merit WP:RS. It is okay to have it mentioned in a section called "controversy" but it is not okay to have a standalone article per WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:CFORK. "Sonia-says-in-Maharashtra", "says-congress" in the given sources are enough to understand. Jim Carter 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see quite a few PIB links being quoted. This is a new article, and some time must be given to the author to come up with proper links. In my simple understanding, reliable sources can be added in due course of time. But deleting a new unreviewed article without giving time to add proper sources would be WP:ZEAL ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If "Modi government" violates naming conventions of wikipedia, wikipedia community may consider renaming the article to "Schemes renamed by Modi ministry". However, a bad title cannot be an argument for deletion. Remedy to a bad title on wikipedia is a better title, not deletion. If the article is a propaganda, then propaganda material be removed and the article appropriately tagged.ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

: "Modi government?" doesn't exist but Modi ministry does. Seruapain 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

his article is part of political propaganda that seems to downgrade working of present government. although it is the fact that new scheme by Modi governmet subsumed the older scheme, but to claim that they were only renamed is far from truth. Just to give one example Jan Dhan yojana went far beyond the mandate of Basic Saving bank deposit of previous government. It actually forced banks to open no-frill accounts and link them to Aadhar card. Also in terms of success two could not be compared. And it should be kept in mind that it has always been policy of Indian government to subsume all the related schemes in the new ones, and this could not be termed as mere renaming. The title of page is defamatory and misleading. The linked provided as reference also does not claim renaming.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is unique and the contention that Central Govt led by Narendra Modi has been renaming and repackaging schemes has been covered in the Indian media on and off. for example ^[1]^[2]^[3] etc. In fact renaming old schemes was an election agenda in 2014 and a part of election speeches. ^[4]. In case the article veers towards a biased propaganda like language, it should be edited and propaganda material removed. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

comment votes have been deleted on this page. Admin please note. The article has a listing of facts. With citations.

Keep. This is a useful list that accurately represents the policy debate in India. That several schemes have been renamed has been pointed out by several commentators and economists. Do note that there is a significant difference between stating facts in a neutral tone and political propaganda. One of the Remove comment above indicates that this is downgrading the work of the present government. Such language itself is an indication of bias, and is not rooted in facts. Where schemes have been renamed with changes, such changes can be presented in a separate column. However, this list itself is an important compilation of information and falls under a larger set of renamed institutions, towns and infrastructure projects in India. Multitrackdrifting (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Multitrackdrifting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:STAND. Schemes of Modi ministry have been the subject of controversies and are widely debated in India such as 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. Huge sources from independent outlets are available to verify these listed schemes in the article. I do not see how these can exist elsewhere or can be merged with an existing article. Given the notability surrounding such several schemes[11][12] the list should be kept. Seruapain 07:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The controversies are not just made by Indian National Congress but from other political parties of India as well such as Shiv Sena [13]. Seruapain 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs to be documented. All the references were given properly and it qualifies as a list type. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this appears to be a reasonable topic for a list, especially given the current or recent furore on the subject. Of course, the current list looks rather bad; I'd be open to supporting a TNT delete for this specific page on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no particular interest in this debate. But I want to note here that the people who are asking to keep this page, should seriously put some effort in fixing the article, if they think that its worthy of existence. The article in its current state contains a lot of WP:OR. As I have said here in the edit summary, the sources should clearly state that the new programme is synonymous to the older programme. As for the article's WP:GNG, there have to be some considerable number of reliable, secondary and independent sources that say in their own voice (not in opposition's voice, because any opposition is not a secondary & independent source) that, 'Programs renamed by Modi Government/Ministry' is a notable issue or subject. There are currently no such sources present in the article, and this is a big problem. To those who want to keep this article, you must work on finding such sources. Or else, no responsible editor who has been here for a while, accepts that this article can continue to exist, no matter how many people out there are interested in this subject. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are just a boring encyclopedia who completely rely on quality sources and our policies & guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:V etc. Also, given that this article is being used for publicity on online forums (TBH, I came to know about this article from that Facebook page itself), it would be a gross violation of Wikipedia's principles to keep this article just because there are a number of keep votes. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding to the above point here. I agree that there must be more independent sources that show the notability of the subject for this article to stay. It seems that some sources have been added to the article to this effect, but, as of now, three out of the four articles presented in the lead to show notability are written by the same person. Two of them are actually just the same exact article reproduced on two different websites.

I added around half a dozen new citations. The point about independent voices is well taken. The new citations should take carr of it. Given more time, I'm sure more editors will contribute to increase the number of entries and also enrich the article. Chirag (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the notability of the subject of the article is still under question. You can add half a dozen new citations but if all of them are from the same source, it does not help establish notability as according to WP:GNG multiple articles by the same author or organizations are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these sources cited are citing govt data and reports. Apart from that, there are other citations from Govt run websites which should butress the notability argument. Chirag (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not even addressing the issue we are raising here. Notability isn't about whether the sources are valid or not. Notability means whether the subject of this article deserves an article on wikipedia. Please refer to WP:GNG and read Tyler Durden's comment above. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bad faith creation. S. No. 9 in the list 'Neem Coated Urea' is a type of fertiliser. There has never been/never will exist a program or scheme by that name. What the author has done is equate the 'Growth Claims' by the current Indian Government to the name of a fertiliser, essentially calling it shit. A clarification was sought on the author talk page, no response yet. 49.207.55.113 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather harsh judgement for not responding to your comment. There was an edit war happening (the page was unprotected then) and I didn't wan't to get into it. I don't do this for a living, so I can't respond to all comments as soon as they are posted. Coming to the matter of bad faith. Considering the speed and frequency with which the article was being blanked by anonymous/newly created articles, I can easily imagine that there is an organised campaign to suppress this page. So, editors/admins should consider the bad faith aspect of some of the editors requesting deletion of the article. Chirag (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The article was never being "blanked by anonymous/newly created articles". Only those entries of the list that failed verification based on the source were removed in good faith because content on wikipedia must be verifiable. That most of the entries got removed in such a process is a testimony to the poor quality of the article. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were 7 instances of blanking and numerous instances of vandalism. Mixed in was large scale removal of content, where seeking more references would've been warranted.

Nevertheless, removing content that fails verification from a wikipedia article can't be claimed to be evidence of bad faith. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organised mass action can be seen as evidence of bad faith. Chirag (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia article on a politically colored subject, with more than half of the claims failing verification, and widely circulated on social media can also be seen as evidence of bad faith. Please, I am trying to be as civil as possible with you and giving you the benefit of doubt. I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me (and others). Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You responded later by saying "Boo Hoo. I'm not fixing it." That's beside the point; you still haven't clarified why you inserted the name of a fertiliser as a government program and the new name of that program as "Growth claims". 49.207.55.113 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also urged you to fix it. Please go ahead and fix it. I've left it for you. Chirag (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I fix your childish vandalism? You should be blocked from editing for doing that. 49.207.55.113 (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, what the heck is happening here? Do you people realise that you're on Wikipedia? This is becoming a street-fight. Please take WP a bit seriously, at least for a while. Someone who knows what exactly the problem is, kindly go ahead and fix it. And IP, that's not how Wikipedia:Blocking policy works. And you should avoid using the word "vandal". Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is being widely circulated in Web forums and talk board. I hate to say this but the page has become a political propaganda tool. Most of the sources cited are unreliable or doesn't mention in the news report that the scheme was renamed. Another problem with this is that most of the claims are alleged as its is nearly impossible to determine weather the scheme was renamed or completely relaunched from scrap. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia is not the right place for an article like this.Razer^{Text me} 07:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to debate whether the content is factual and fits in Wikipedia, not the way it is being used by whom. For eg List of renamed public places in Tamil Nadu exists. And there are many such lists. Chirag (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:WWIN, bad faith, politically motivated article. Doesn't add any value and is un-encycleopaedic. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't come across any valid arguments on why this article should be deleted. References can be improved for some items, and any items which do not belong to the list can be removed. But in my opinion there is no reason to delete the article completely. Aurorion (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: besides the prose and source quality issues, this topic makes for an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't significant in the least that a newly-elected legislature goes around tweaking and rebranding existing government programs, that's basically the only thing that elected officials do in any democratic environment. It's furthermore not significant in the least that opposition parties whine about it, that's their job. If there's a significant controversy broiling about this (I don't observe from given sources that there is, beyond routine government criticism) then that controversy will probably be covered in an article about this administration, but a point-by-point list of every program they've supposedly changed the name of (debated by various pundits) is unwarranted and unencyclopedic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- 1, 2, 3. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References/sources are irrelevant. Why is it notable that names of organizations were changed? If the organizations have their own pages, discuss the name change there. If the organizations don't have their own pages, then it's not notable information. None of this seems significant. He changed the names, but why does that matter? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify-There seems to be a good bit of media furore about the fact that the Modi government (Indian slang for Government of India under the leader of Modi) is renaming a lot of schemes under the earlier governments and saying that he was the first to think about them. Reliable sources may be found.On the other hand the topic is slightly politically coloured leading to vandalism. Thus let the user have the article in draft space to be put back when reference and copyedit etc have been done .FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are failing verification and much of the list is rather a guess, WP:OR. Capitals00 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The bottom line is that the list claims that the name changes are because the Modi government is trying to claim more than it has actually done but linking name changes to that claim is WP:OR. At best a couple of lines in Premiership of Narendra Modi (The government claimed this but the opposition claimed that they just renamed all the programs - that sort of thing). --regentspark (comment) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this very reluctantly because I have doubts we will be able to reach a consensus given the sharp divide and already heavy level of participation. But heres hoping...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic is notable. The party itself is bragging about it. It has wide coverage, controversies, and claims were made not from the opposition only but also from their own ally. Jionakeli (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you sure you have read that article correctly? Or perhaps you accidentally linked to the wrong article? There is nothing in that article that supports your claims. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I would assume good faith and not say that the article was created in bad faith, the article does appear to exist almost solely to promote a propaganda point. Notwithstanding the NPOV issues, there are serious problems I find with the non-encyclopaedic tone, problems with the references, and the grammatically incorrect name of the article. While it may be accurate that the government has "repackaged" some programmes (which is itself subjective), to simply say that they have been renamed is rather inaccurate, and borders on WP:OR. MikeLynch (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned by several editors above, information is sounding like WP:OR and indiscriminate collection, where the title seems to be misleading with respect to content, without clear justification on reason for inclusion of each such scheme in this list with WP:RS. Neutrality of the information is also in question. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out that intense canvassing was done in the initial part of the discussion , It has lead to various spam votes. Also, The whole premise of this article relies on allegations and unreliable source as It is quantitatively impossible to to know weather a Govt scheme was renamed , relaunched, revamped or It was a completely new scheme. There are few common areas where every Indian govt tries to focus ( Edu, agriculture , housing) and as soon as a new govt comes to power, they launch various schemes for these areas. This does not mean that the scheme renamed. Another BIG problem with this article is the sources, Either they dont mention that the scheme was renamed in the article , They talk about claims made by opposition leaders or they are unreliable blogs like FactChecker.In . Wikipedia is based on facts and to be honest there are no facts here. They are all allegation and it is impossible to determine the facts. Frankly this article is nothing but a bucket load of original research. Razer^{Text me} 12:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is not deleted, I would like to request the Admins to atleast clean it up and back it with reliable sources because the original creater has been repeatedly engaging in edit war whenever I try to clean up the article. Razer^{Text me} 12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per Regent'sPark and IvanVector.Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Selective) Merge to List of government schemes in India. Some of the renames might be notable but there seems no policy-based reason to have an article just for renames, seeing as there are no sources afaict that discuss these all together. It does make sense to mention old names in the current article about such schemes though, so merging seems to be the best option. Regards So Why 19:49, 30 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dero

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

Non-notable musician. - TheMagnificentist 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:40, 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. Two relists only brought one further real comment (plus one WP:PERX) which did not mention a policy-based reason for deletion (but instead admitted that the topic might actually be notable). So Why 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada

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

Not a useful list. Canada literally has thousands upon thousands of housing cooperatives, since virtually every city of even moderate size will have a few dozen, and even smaller towns will often have a handful too -- but as things stand right now, just six of them actually have their own standalone articles, all six of them are already filed in Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada, and this list just replicates those same six rather than aiming for anything more comprehensive. While it's true that lists aren't automatically deemed redundant with categories per WP:CLN, it's also true that every category doesn't automatically need to be paired with its own matching list of the same contents -- to warrant maintaining both, the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do (such as being more completist, or actually containing written content about the notability of the concept, or being a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories). But if all the list is going to do is replicate the category contents with no added context for why the list is doing something different than the category is, then we don't need the list. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada. The nomination misstates what CLN says, and the difference from the category comes from the inherent characteristics of the format itself (CLN lays these out, in addition to noting how some editors/readers prefer one format over another so don't delete either just based on your preference for one). You instead need a special reason why a list shouldn't exist in tangent with the category rather than special justification for it existing. Notwithstanding that, the nomination also fails to consider the list's potential for annotation, direct sourcing, table formatting and sorting, and other alternate means of organization, all of which are functions a category cannot perform, and this consideration of potential is required by WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. "Delete because it has not yet been developed" is simply not a valid position at AFD, yet that's what I read above. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator correctly understands what CLN says: it does not say that lists and categories should always coexist with each other, but specifies that while sometimes there are valid reasons why a list and a category should coexist, there are also sometimes valid reasons why content should be organized in one form or the other but not in both. Table formatting and sorting, for example, are formatting matters for how a list should be organized, not reasons in and of themselves why a list needs to exist. What other criterion, besides alphabetizing their names as the category already does, do we need a list of six entries to offer alternate resortability on, for starters? And what further annotation needs to be provided here, and what additional sourcing needs to be added besides what's already present in the articles themselves? Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination claimed that "...the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do..." Those formatting and annotation possibilities for development provide just that (and the annotations could include year of founding, specific location, size, notes on history/special features, etc., and direct footnotes for all of this). Your position, whatever its merits, that the list isn't required to coexist here is also not the same as arguing that it isn't permissible, so whence deletion? postdlf (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big proponent of CLN here, but with the list creator indef blocked (in part for persistent bare-minimum page creation), and the nominator the most likely person up here imo to expand the list and turn it into something useful, I've no objection in this case. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - As per Shawn in Montreal. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 30 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 no consensus. With no further discussion of the sources provided, I'm closing this as no consensus. Before renominating, consider whether it can be merged to the company's article instead. So Why 12:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maple T.A.

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for web content(this being a web-based program). The only source offered is the website of the company that created it. I could find no sources offering in-depth coverage of this software. It was tagged with an A7 deletion request(importance) in September but it was removed. The proposed CSD was contested with the explanation "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this page is intended to be an information source about a product (Maple T.A.). This was the first bit of information created for this page and more content is to be created in the future." which is a promotional purpose- also suggesting that the page creator has a COI. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for articles on Maple T.A., they can be provided. Am I to include them as reference, or here, or both? RochelleAngyal (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be satisfactory. They will need to be independent reliable sources(please review if you haven't yet). 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here would be preferable, as you should not directly edit articles about your company or its products per the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from a digital testing consultant in the Netherlands discussing digital testing with Maple T.A.^[1] Additional academic research publications are coming.RochelleAngyal (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conference presentation from TU Delft on their assessment practices. ^[2]RochelleAngyal (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:39, 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. So Why 19:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B4bonah

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

Speedy deletion tag removed multiple times from page creator and IP. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More hostile activity here. Meatsgains (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he has had a hit in Ghana, then he's notable per WP:MUSICBIO. But I can't find any sources to back up that claim. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (talk) he has had a hit song and has also collaberated with africa biggest artirst Sarkodie (rapper) and dr cryme, this are all major artist from ghana.. also his music's are on itunes.. u can also check .. 'b4bonah on iTunes

Do you have any reliable sources covering his hit song? Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Meatsgains (talk) please am really new with all this technicalities.. but I will be glad if you could help me review the pages rather than nominating them for delation.. thank you ref Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .

Don't pull the innocent card here and stop attempting to remove the AfD tag. Meatsgains (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all am saying now is that i want you guys should help improve the article b4bonah .. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acyd101 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. All significant coverage appears non-independent. WP:CHARTS does not list an "official" chart for Ghana but the claim "his hit single "Dear God" which was able to top charts" requires some form of source and none is in the article or apparently available through searching. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:38, 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 merge to Alibaba. So Why 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alisports

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

All information is regarding Alibaba group. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Support- this could be summed up with a single SHORT paragraph on the Alibaba main article El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a management directory / WP:WEBHOST for companies' promotional messages. WP:ADVOCACY of the worst kind. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 20 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) 02:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/Merge into the Alibaba article per Gnews returns d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:11, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laksa Kedah

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

Article has only recipe. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I can find references for the dish in cookbooks, such as this one at Page 233, but the fact remains that this article is nothing but a recipe. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:13, 20 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) 02:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 30 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) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supply evangelist

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

This concept does not appear to be notable. The term is not used in the one source cited, and a search does not suggest that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- some sort of WP:ADVOCACY & a personal essay. Not evident that this concept even exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 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) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly original research or self-promotion. Definitely not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. Possibly original research. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:09, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was reviewed at Deletion Review, and they asked I expand on the close. Here are the two statements I gave:

Since people are asking for more, ok: We start with an article that is three short paragraphs, much shorter than the amount of prose that has already taken place here or at the AFD. While Cunard went to great lengths to explain how it received coverage, it simply didn't overcome the arguments about the company being a small, new and not yet notable company. The nomination mentioned the previous AFD (which I did look at) and the early and late !voters had the opportunity to already preview the sources that Cunard presented, as they were the exact same sources given in the previous AFD. The other keep votes were basically saying "enough sources exist" but didn't explain how those sources were adequate, how they actually went into depth; they didn't overcome the claims of the nominator. SwisterTwister gave a detailed analysis of the sources, which raised a number of issues. Interesting, but the other issues were not decisive, although he did echo the concerns of the nominator when it comes to depth of sources, and the sources being primarily focused on financial issues rather than the company. Light2021's contribution was small, but understandable as they had previously gone into great detail on the other AFD, which I took at face value. Xxanthippe's delete vote was also short, but not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they were not notable yet, which I took to mean insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The strongest !vote was the nom, which also talks about depth, plus the insufficiency of the sources. ST's argument was also very interesting, even if a bit meandering. Cunard's input was well researched and I don't question the accuracy but reading it, while staying objective, doesn't scream "independent, thoughtful analysis" by the sources themselves, which themselves describe the company as a "start-up", which would naturally raise questions about their enduring notability at this stage, questions that went unanswered.
In response to a question: Dennis, I'm struggling a bit because the community's attitude to notability, and the text of WP:N, seems to have drifted in a deletionist direction over the past few years. When you closed that, were your thoughts more about WP:SPIP? Or more about WP:CORPDEPTH? Or have I just misunderstood?—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Both come into play in at least two of the votes. SPIP is always a concern as an editor, but wasn't really a major factor in my decision making, as the comments were mainly focused on CORPDEPTH and sources in general. The idea that this was spam didn't enter my mind, to be honest. The close was actually made easier by Cunard because I trusted him to provide the most solid evidence of notability, conveniently put on the same page. Unfortunately, each of those entries was rather mundane stuff you would see in press releases, which supported the claims of the nom et. al. Things like "Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders" or "Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform" which is specifically what CORPDEPTH calls trivial coverage. Nothing in the quotes made me think "The deletes are wrong". There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes. The quotes simply talked about the company in the exact terms that CORPDEPTH clearly excludes. I would have been easier (and obviously less controversial) to close as "NO CONSENSUS" but that is kicking the can down the road and doesn't reflect what I saw as a policy based consensus. I would agree that WP:N has probably tightened up when it comes to businesses. I would not call that a drift towards deletionism, I think the community has simply grown weary of the spam and has drawn a more definitive "line in the sand" on notability when it comes to start up businesses, and this is reflected in both consensus and the written policies around WP:GNG. I have to use the policy as it is written today, not 11 years ago when I started. But the tightening isn't the issue here, nor any concern about spam, nor did I apply a higher standard, nor did I need to. The lack of sufficient high quality sources was the issue, and specifically, CORPDEPTH was the specific claim that was not overcome in spite of a great deal of effort. (and pardon my wordiness, I've been rather swamped over the last 24 hour, so my prose isn't as concise as I like when I'm a bit rushed) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moglix

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable private tech company with insignificant funding. Significant RS coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is largely PR driven and relates to funding and company aspirations, such as: "Garg, a former Google executive, is positioning his e-commerce firm Moglix for the GST's launch on July 1"etc.: [14] Sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiranhota whose other contributions outside this topic have an appearance of being promotionally driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete As nominated earlier by me and others. Thanks for AfD. Light2021 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as delete, but an user asked for more discussion on my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jejani, Abhishek (2016-10-16). "Moglix: Using tech to disrupt distribution". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers. Moglix, a business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce start-up, is trying to use technology to disrupt the traditional distribution channels for industrial products.
  Recently, the B2B start-up which specialises in procurement of industrial products such as fasteners and industrial electricals, raised $4.2 million (Rs 28 crore) in a Series-A round of funding, led by Accel Partners, Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. It had also raised $1.5 million (Rs 10 crore) in November last year in the pre-Series-A round from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures. Ratan Tata also invested in the start-up in February.
  Founded in August 2015 by Rahul Garg, the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform. It has also partnered with manufacturers and distributors from China and Taiwan.
2. Nair, Sulekha (2016-02-08). "Ratan Tata's 6th investment in 2016 is B2B platform Moglix; founder Rahul Garg 'extremely pleased'". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in August 2015 by former Googler Rahul Garg, Moglix is focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe. It specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, fasteners and industrial electricals.
  ...
  Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia.
  With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.
  ...
  Moglix has a client base of 100+ companies in the manufacturing sector. These companies typically have a turnover ranging from Rs 50 crore to Rs 1,000 crore.
3. Avvannavar, Umesh M (2016-09-25). "Moglix plans to expand its footprint". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Moglix, an ecommerce company specialising in B2B procurement of industrial products, plans to expand its footprint.
  ...
  Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders. ...
  The company specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, Fasteners, and Industrial Electricals. In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying.
4. Banerjee, Sneha (2016-10-04). "Know What Goes Behind Getting 28 Crores As Funds". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  The article notes:
  
  When ex-Google employee Rahul Garg, conceptualized his startup in late 2014, he realized that the global trade of products was still operating in the old fashion, while the internet/ mobile, had led to democratization of the services and mobile app and advertising ecosystem.
  His startup Moglix, is a B2B e-commerce platform, which specializes in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MROs, power tools, fasteners, electrical devices, industrial lubricants.
  ...
  The Firm today announced that it has raised INR 28 crores in Series A round of funding led by Accel Partners with participation from Jungle Ventures and SeedPlus. Moglix has raised Pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures in October 2015 and an undisclosed financial investment in the company by Ratan Tata in February 2016.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moglix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial puff based on PR releases. It's known as churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

As usual COPY-PASTE job, without even reading or knowing where or what source are you copying from ? You seriosuly do not read any of these, just make a lengthy discussion to confuse people as if you are presenting some Detail in depth research or analysis, where you just go to links, copy and paste here. This is ridiculous.

FirstPost - Funding news seriously? Why to make Wikipedia, lets just make it newspaper?
Enterpreneur - Non notable media source as per Wikipedia, Paid blog written in the name of media.
Business Standard: Funding news and read the brochure in media " mall and large enterprises have to procure industrial products from 100s of suppliers"
Deccan Herald : another brochure in media.
Do you seriously read them ? Light2021 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix participants who have not commented here: CNMall41 (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Anilkumatpatel (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), and David in DC (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- the above coverage is mostly routine funding news, puffery and PR-driven, as in:

"...focused on technologically disrupting the B2B industrial products space for suppliers and buyers across the globe.
"Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform, build a deep supplier base as well as increase marketing spends across Asia."
"With its pre-Series A funds, the start-up was able to raise its core team from just two members -- Garg and his head of business operations, to a team of 7. It also strengthened its tech platform, says Garg.

This is just from one piece. The above details also highlight just how insignificant the company is (from 2 to 7 people; series A funding; etc). With this amount of people, talking about "disrupting" an industry "across the globe" is peculiar, to say the least. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is too promotional and poorly written. But that's an argument for editing, not for deletion. I see precisely the same points being made as last November's AfD. (Including my own.) Seems to me they ought to lead to the same result. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Responding to a ping based on commenting at first AfD. My !vote remains the same here. There is in-depth coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH such as this one in Entrepreneur (written by staff writer) and the ones analyzied by Cunard above. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur Article Seriously? Not even notable media as per wikipedia guidelines. Its like paying someone to write for yourself in a Online Blog? anything else you found in media, In-depth? Light2021 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this is said with a heavy analysis of sources, see the fact 3 sources are in the current articles: All about funding and money reports (and that's considering one of them is Entrepreneur!) nothing significant for what we need here and it's said so in the WP:NOT policies. WeC:3 never at all compromised with their "national publication" coat because this would mean WP:COATRACKing; the Entrepreneur article is indiscriminate coverage about information anyone could find in a press release such as where when and how it performs its business. What we also apply here is WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, meaning we are not a webhost for whatever the company please to advertise or for its clients, therefore saying we should repeat them is completely inapplicable. Sources above #1 is from a trade-consumer publisher requiring their financial numbers and the specifics (no one knows the company numbers best than them) and #2 is similar except with immediate PR-like paragraphs for each part: Numbers, CEO quotes and their locations, clients and services, same goes for #3 until we find #4 is literally a Q&A profile with the CEO from a trade publisher. These are in fact not sufficient for GNG considering they are primary-sourced information therefore not independent (In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying Promotional, anyone?), especially since the oozing similarities in articles were aired months apart. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No substantial progress since the last relist but I'm comfortable with interpreting two delete arguments, a good nomination, and no counter-arguments as a consensus to delete. A Train^talk 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Yamagata

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

Non-notable voice actress. JA Wikipedia shows a credits dump. ANN has no notable articles to cover her career, just cast announcements. No major roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears she was Anna in a Tekken OVA. Is that considered a major role? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna is a major character in the franchise, but she's supporting in Tekken: The Motion Picture. But go ahead and count that one as a major role. Any others? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Major role" I suppose refers to WP:NACTOR, #1, but I do not agree that our policy's idea of "role" easily translates to a voice artist. Without reliable sourcing, the GNG is not met: delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - voice actresses are run of the mill. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 20 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) 02:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she has dubbed a large number of English-language movies, and actors who commonly do this are among the most recognized actors in their countries of origin. See here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those articles that show she's most recognized? And not just cast listings/announcements, but ones that hail her as significant for dubbing those roles? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 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) 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by CJON-DT

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

List of programs broadcast by an individual independent television station. While lists of this type are permitted for national networks, I can't find any other evidence in Category:Lists of television series by network of them existing for standalone stations as well. And furthermore, while the station is nominally independent of Canada's national networks, in actual practice it doesn't buy standalone broadcast rights to any programming that's exclusive to it, but just sublicenses a crossnetwork mix of programs from CTV and Global — so it's still basically a dual affiliate of both networks nonetheless, with its only real point of "independence" being that it's not faithful to either network's standard schedule. The end result being that apart from its own local newscast (which doesn't have its own standalone article separate from the "news" section of the station article) and maybe a few syndication strips, pretty much everything listed here is already going to be in either List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV Two or List of programs broadcast by Global anyway. All of which means there's just no need for this. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 'cruft & unnecessary cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 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) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be a keep if it was actually maintained in any manner, but we're stuck in the 2014-15 season on this article, plus this can easily just be maintained as a mention of what's currently on in summary form in the CJON-DT article. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Freddy Awards

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

Not a notable award. Local to a small part of two states of the USA, and at high school level. Sources are mostly primary sources lacking any real depth or importance. As well as this, a list of award winners is also up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past Freddy Award nominations and recipients Ajf773 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "An annual recognition of outstanding high school musical theatre in the Lehigh Valley area". Local coverage/importance only (The Express-Times). It's a shame to see a decent amount of work wasted, but I have to agree with the nom - this award does not seem to pass WP:GNG. This kind of content should go to a regional or theater wikia or such (maybe it could be copied to [15]?). See also Wikipedia:Notability (awards) for context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the creator of this article. The Freddy Awards were the subject of a feature-length documentary film that was broadcast by the Oprah Winfrey Network. That alone means it satisfies WP:N and WP:GNG. The article as it stands right now is heavy on regional sources because they are the best sources of information. Even putting that aside, those regional sources ARE reliable sources (The Express-Times, The Morning Call, WFMZ, etc.), so the article passes WP:V and WP:RS with them alone. However, there ARE other non-regional reliable sources out there that discuss the Freddy Awards, such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the Tennessean, etc. The article as it stands now could be expanded upon and improved with more outside sources (including the feature-length documentary about it), but there is no deadline for such improvements, so it shouldn't be deleted for that reason. And even putting that aside, the article meets notability standards as it is. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local award. The article has the appearance of primarily serving to house annual recipients of the award, which are also non notable. Such content belongs on the award's web page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 15 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) 02:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Union Norway

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wholly unsourced article, apparently translated from no:Pakistansk Forening Norge, which is also unsourced. The organisation does exist -- it has a Facebook page -- but I haven't found any independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage therein. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:43, 14 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) 01:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no sources on the page and no reason to believe this group is notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It lacks sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and I cannot find any WP:RS for it. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:24, 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 no consensus. No prejudice to merging, which can be attempted/discussed through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park

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

A list for a particular cricket grounds is over-specialization. I see we have others. I don't thing they make any sense either. A list by team, that would make much more sense DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is wrong. Citing the main international stats for a particular cricket ground is very precious. If you think it is no point, so according to your view, citing centuries for cricketers is also not worth. So delete all the centuries cited in each players' article. Providing centuries of each venue is worth just like a player scores a century to his career. Also, it is about international matches and international centuries. I don't think any bad about the articles. So keep them and edit in future. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Cricket statistics for particular grounds ("fastest century at X", "lowest score by Y at Z") are kept in the same way as they are for teams, due I presume to historical quirks in the different grounds, which would argue for notability to me. Whether it's an entirely encyclopedic subject I can't be sure, so I'm happy to be convinced in either direction over the course of the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be merged to Warner Park Sporting Complex; that's not true of some lists of centuries for other more frequently used grounds, for what it's worth. Afraid I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know 'other stuff exists' isn't usually an argument against deletion. However in this case it might be. There are umpteen lists of this nature, covering every international cricket ground I can think of (and lots I didn't think of). Many of these lists are long-standing. This suggests to me that there's a consensus that lists of this kind are appropriate for the encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not been able to find a similar AfD discussion related to international cricket centuries at a particular ground. Find one if you can. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not apply in this case. There are other articles too such as List of international cricket centuries at Lord's. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can see a lot of space on main article and we can keep this article on the main until it becomes large enough to separate. Greenbörg (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is no precedent for these "List of centuries at x" articles, I propose delete based on WP:NOTMIRROR as this content can be uplifted from the ESPNCricinfo website. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 14 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) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards delete on the grounds of WP:NOTMIRROR, because I don't believe that a list of every century scored in international cricket is notable in an encyclopaedia, and because, in general, the content could be more usefully summarised at the article about the ground. Summarised rather than copied. Unlike the article creator I don't believe, either, that it is always appropriate to add tables of centuries etc... to articles about players - I would much rather see sensible prose summaries in the majority of cases. I could be convinced otherwise if someone can show definitive notability of a list of all scores of greater than 100 (and, by extension, five wicket hauls etc...). Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warner Park Sporting Complex. Definitely NOT delete because the info is useful but probably in the wrong place. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last relist has not really made consensus much clearer so I'm relisting this a third time. Consensus seems to be slightly in favor of keeping this in one form or another but further discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unnecessary cross-categorisation and an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the ground. Does not justify a separate article. Johnlp (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are almost exclusively self-cites: HuffPost blog by artist, record label, Bandcamp, etc. Only one that might not be is 404. No other evidence of coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 14 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) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Husch Blackwell

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

Sources in the article are all either primary, press releases, or trivial coverage. Sources on-line are a bit better, but I could find nothing more than passing references or more PR things. Hobit (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 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) 01:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L-Boyz Record

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - I found no sources to indicate that this meets GNG, or is notable by record label standards (notable artists, impact on genre or culture), but I note that sources are likely to be in Arabic, which would be difficult for me to find. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- smallish labels are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Mathew

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

Non notable actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has supposedly acted in 2 movies - Aanandam in which she is not even billed and Oru Mexican Aparatha in which she had a very minor role. All the references are about the movies, and her acting career section is therefore just information about the movies - the directors, actors, producers etc. Then there is also a section of her personal life which is unreferenced. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic GNG and WP:NACTOR she needs to do more substantial and notable work to warrant a standalone page, for now its WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 04:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:27, 14 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) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actress. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:00, 29 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. G4 —SpacemanSpiff 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Buxani

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buxani

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

An unremarkable businessman; significant RS coverage not found. Article previously deleted via PROD; a related article Buxani was deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxani. Created by Special:Contributions/Sepialine with no other contributions outside this topic. Suggest salting due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Previously deleted as a result of the February AfD and now recreated by a new WP:SPA. Repeating my view from the previous AfD: "There is a FergusTan.net/Business Times piece on the subject's "passion for real estate" but neither that nor anything else seems sufficient to indicate the subject as more than a man going about his business or makes a convincing case for encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:BASIC or WP:GNG." I see nothing to negate that view. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:35, 14 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) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 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 no consensus. So Why 09:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Women Muslim League

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

A political party estabilished 4 years ago. No sources for it (its members) winning any elections, participating in elections, having notable members, nothing except a source that it was established (rotted, archive: [16] - reads like a short press release). I am all for countering systemic bias etc., but political parties are not notable just by existing, and this one's total lack of coverage in the last 4 years suggests it is not yet (ever?) encyclopedic. Through a search through Pakistani sources could help? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, all I can find are article related to the party's existence or things like social media pages connected to it. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously Proded so not eligible for a "soft delete." Here's hoping for some kind of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's any English-language coverage, it's paywalled or offline. I can't find anything of substance on their activities (there's more on Rubina Shaheen than the org), and their social media presence is sparse on independent media. Urdu-language searchers might have better luck, but that range of material is inaccessible to this searcher. czar 05:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First women's political party in Pakistan = notable. I have added a few English references. There are more available in Urdu per the party's website as a start. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the sourcing warrants it. The ref on the party's creation is brief, and both the Daily Times (Pakistan) and Dawn (newspaper) have no significant coverage past that. What sources from the website are reliable and give any depth on the org for us to write a full treatment of the topic? czar 04:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam, Aamri2, Ahmed Nisar, Ahmer Jamil Khan, and Feroze Ahmad 2: Perhaps some of our Urdu speaking editors could help us figure out if any of the sources copied on the party's website are reliable, and if they give any substantial coverage about the party. Kaldari (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few of them briefly and the ones I've seen (Specifically, The Daily Subh and Daily Mashriq Peshawar) are both somewhat popular (Think: Toronto Sun to City News Toronto = Them to The Toronto Sun) and about as reliable as Pakistani newspapers can get (See Corruption in Pakistan), and they were covering the Pakistan Women Muslim League, but there are enough that they should be considered significantly covered. If you need details @Kaldari:, just ask. Aamri2 (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamri2, thanks. What do they say beyond mentioning that the org exists? Almost all of the clippings are single, short paragraphs—usually significant coverage means that the subject is covered in depth, such that we could write a deep encyclopedia article using the sources alone. czar 23:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let's keep in mind WP:NOBLE - it doesn't matter how worthy a cause this is. If there is nothing but press releases for its inauguration, it is (sadly) not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline > essay. I just read Aamri2's comment again mentioning "significantly covered". Hmlarson (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamri2: Could you provide us with the name of the party in Urdu? That might help track down additional sources. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is my considered opinion that all articles about verified political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections should be automatically kept, regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of information that our readers have reason to expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I base this opinion upon the policy of Ignore All Rules (use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to signify its notability Light2021 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aamri2 says the Urdu sources are reliable and it "should be considered significantly covered". I'm willing to take his word on it since I can't read the sources myself. I also think we should err on the side of caution here, per Carrite. Official political parties have a fair degree of inherent notability (even if our current guidelines don't say so). There's a good chance that when an election rolls around, people are going to be looking for information about this party, so even our current stub is probably better than nothing. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole lot of crystal ball in these keep arguments—the party hasn't won a seat in an election, right? I'm afraid that "significant coverage" quoted twice from Aamri2's post here refers to the newspapers indeed mentioning the party (as our English sources do) but without the depth with which we'd write an actual encyclopedia article about the org. All of the clippings on their website are short, and almost all are a single paragraph... Without more detail on what those clippings contain and perhaps the facts that are missing from this article, I don't see how we'd have an encyclopedia article, nevertheless sigcov. czar 03:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iagree with Carrite about this: we should be as inclusive as possible about political parties. It's the only way to avoid unconscious bias. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 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) 22:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Budworth

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

Largely unsourced (the sources generally aren't about David Budworth) and apparently written by a family genealogist of the Budworths. Though I'm sure this is of great interest to David Budworth's relatives, it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG (and WP:V). Sionk (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR and WP:GNG issues. Much of the content is about turbines/etc., not about him. I don't see anything that would warrant his inclusion in an encyclopedia. Not all engineers are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 09:38, 14 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) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely unsourced original research and a tribute page. Article does not establish notability and significant RS coverage is not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 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.

First things first: Despite commonly being used as an argument, WP:GNG does not have to be met if a WP:SNG is met. WP:N is quite clear on that as pointed out by TheDragonFire when it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; [...]" (emphasis added). In this case, there is no consensus that she has won "a well-known and significant industry award", so PORNBIO was not met anyway, rendering the discussion moot.

However, what those arguing for keep based on WP:PORNBIO seem to have overlooked is that Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which PORNBIO is a part, clearly states that those standards are mere indicators of notability, helping users to determine how an article should be handled. The actual criteria the article has to meet are mentioned in WP:BASIC which mostly mirrors GNG. Failing GNG will usually mean failing BASIC however unlike GNG BASIC explicitly allows combining multiple sources with non-substantial non-trivial coverage to establish notability, something those arguing along the lines of GNG should remember.

In this case, there were a number of sources mentioned but dismissed as merely trivial mentions at best, something that was not really disputed by those providing them (whether another user is "anti-porn" or not does not change the quality of the sources provided). Without any demonstration of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (WP:BASIC), deletion was the only correct outcome.

Regards So Why 16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue

AfDs for this article:

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

Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis and per my argument in the previous AFD. No qualifying awards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as thousands of sources online[17] thus the subject meets GNG, ~~It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources today however on the first 2 pages there's mentions and by the looks of it indepth coverage here & there,~~ Dunno about PORNBIO however certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

Sources aren't amazing however GNG is most certainly met. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against fan-based awards under our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP In addition to the significant Awards she has won, she is an icon of the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - meets GNG and PORNBIO. A couple of the external links should probably be converted to references. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. WP:PORNBIO superseeds WP:GNG in this case. Regardless of the content of the article (which I have deliberately not looked at), arguments made at User talk:SophisticatedSwampert against their NAC are ridiculous. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read PORNBIO its pretty clear that its a rough guide and that articles are still required to pass GNG. There is no evidence this does which means the trend at AFD is to give more weight to GNG then PORNBIO in close closes. So not ridiculous but thank you for your input. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD debate was reopened after a non-administrative closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So lets recap. There are assertions that this passes GNG but no sources have been adduced that actually pass the GNG. This leaves us an argument about a possible PORNBIO pass that I don't believe for an instant is nailed on and a BLP that clearly does not pass the GNG. The trend is to give GNG more weight than PBIO in close calls and there is a wider project consensus that BLPs require proper sourcing. On that basis my reading is that this is a delete. The closing admin might take a different view but evidence (not assertion) of passing GNG and evidence of the significance of the award will help. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:-Total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.Echo Spartaz.Irrespective of WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG must be met.If sources are provided, I'm willing to change my opinion.And please don't rely on number of GoogleHits.Take time to check the sites too!Winged Blades^Godric 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I question the assertion that "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for Favorite Female Rookie" qualifies as significant and well known for the purposes of PORNBIO. Neither do I believe that there's consensus that this award is comparable to People's Choice Award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editor coffman is entirely correct. The source that likened the FAME awards to the People's Choice Awards was the FAME awards' own organizers/promoters. It's a defunct award, one in a series of short-lived awards organized by AVN in hopes of generating another profitable event to supplement its primary ceremony. The FAME Awards failed, one successor, the "Sex Awards", were cancelled when a planned streaming video deal tanked, and the AVN Fan Awards haven't gained any traction and been rebooted at least once. At least two other porn performers who won the same award in the same category have had their articles deleted this year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources to support the claims of notability. Particularly intrigued by an entry above claiming "thousands of sources online" and, amusingly, "It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources". For the latter, I certainly hope that Mr. Davey2010, was able to find himself a nice iced tea, a cool washcloth on the back of the neck, or at least a shady resting area. For the former, the google hits are to a 1) Daily Dot top 20 Sexy Snapchat list of dubious notability, 2) a seattlepi.com false positive, as the porn actress' name only appears in the image caption of slide 5/27, in a story about another woman entirely, 3) a charming tale from the Daily Fail (largely deemed a non-reliable source by this project) about a senior citizen and his sex doll (that he totally does not have sex with, he says) who is modeled after Alektra Blue. The sourcing is rather downhill from there, regrettably. TheValeyard (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it may be bizarre to post the hot day thing however editors are expected to post actual sources which at the time I couldn't be bothered to do, It's better than saying "Oh yeah meets GNG" and not posting anything. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs an analysis of Davey2010's sources; if such are not forthcoming, GNG would not be met and since PORNBIO apparently isn't either (unless someone can refute Hullaballoo [sp?] Wolfowitz's arguments) deletion would ensue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yee-hah, let's analyze those "sources":

"Snapchat Porn" - includes a picture of the subject's mouth and hand and her supposed snapchat ID. Nothing else. Worthlessd.
"Seattle PI" - An article about a different porn performer does not even mention the subject, although she does appear in a group photo in an accompanying 27-image slideshow. Worthless.
"Daily Mail" Includes a picture of an Alektra Blue sex doll in an article about men who own sex dolls. No info regarding article subject. Worthless.
"lfpress" - An article which does not mention the article subject, illustrated with a group photo of porn performers, including Blue, not mentioned in the article. Worthless.
"TMZ" - posed for a photo at a rapper's party. No other info. TMZ didn't even care enough to identify her in the photo. Worthless.
"The Onion" - The fucking Onion. Namedropped in fake article on a fake/satirical news site. Utterly worthless.

Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's obvious that these sources were posted without making one shred of an effort to assess their value. No editor should have to waste any more time going through the rest of the list demonstrating the obvious. Six straight strikes and you're out! Please delete the article now; the appropriate outcome should be evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse you're going to think they're "worthless" because you're anti-porn and you've demonstrated that with the constant AFD nominations and Delete !votes, The appropriate action would be to close this as No Consensus - Sources were provided and although you disagree with them that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd condescend to explain to us exactly how the "snapchat porn" piece, which literally includes nothing more than a picture of the supposed subject's mouth and hand, plus her supposed snapchat ID, constitutes evidence of notability. There's more substantive information provided in the average youtube cat video, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion sourcing seems sufficient to satisfy subjects notoriety, believe it meets WP:Pornbio Cllgbksr (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empty vote that does not address the WP:GNG concern. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, some of the links (mentioned far above) that are reliable sources have recently been added to this article here. There are also no restrictions against "fan-based awards" in our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. You can include as many "fan awards" as you like, inclusion isn't the point of contention. The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability"...which is, of course, a false claim as I've already stated. Also, basically saying that something is "unencyclopedic" isn't a valid AfD argument. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from writing to sources. article has no encyclopedic worth to be here. some of the keep votes are questionable doubles. Light2021 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've read your !vote 3 times and still cannot understand it could you either amend it so we can all understand it or simply strike it?, I did get the last bit which is actually wrong - There are no double !votes here - Each and every !vote in this AFD is unique and !votes on both sides are going per the relevant policies, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asmaar Peerzada

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited ref are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 14 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) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material and WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Seisen Saunders

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable priest. She founded a small retreat. She was the head of an organisation. She gets minor mentions in Buddhist publications. But none of that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.

1 Directory listing, Primary source

2 Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is written by the subject

3 Directory listing

4 Directory listing

5 Directory listing

6 Just a quote from her

7 Not in source, Source published 2004, She was certified in 2009.

8 Passing mention.

9 Passing mention

10 Link to below

11 Routine announcement of organisation, looks like press release

12 Appears to be small/self publishing, not a reliable source. No depth of coverage.

13 Exert of above, No depth of coverage.

There is still not enough coverage about her in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 14 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) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indepth, thrid party sources to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a tribute page / WP:ADVOCACY, cited to directory listings and other sources not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Bombarded with artist talking about the song, primary sources and passing mentions. Nothing independent of any depth about the song. Part of a mass of over exaggerated cruft surrounding this artist created by a SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this song in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 02:21, 15 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) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. No stand-alone notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This isn't the most obvious consensus I've seen but by and large the delete !votes appear to be based on guidelines and policy. That does not appear to be the case for the keep's, of which 2/3 are "it exists" !votes. Only one Keep makes an argument for notability and w/o citing any evidence. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHPOS

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional tone has not been eliminated. Compared with the previous AfD, the software might still be notable enough for this page but from the looks of it would be very difficult to rewrite it to remove the promotional tone that has permeated this article all around. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the previous AfDs and all the keep arguments fail based on today's standards. The subject fails WP:GNG and I can find no RSes to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This spam has stayed here for a decade. Let's not make it a second one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My cursory reading up on this software leads me to think this article is notable. The article itself might be a bit advertising like and lacks sufficient references, but that can be fixed or the appropriate templates added. The software, on the other hand, does appear to be genuine and widely used. It's actually articles like this that make Wikipedia useful in the encyclopedic sense. I've nominated a lot of pages recently for deletion due to lack of notability, but I think this page should stay.13:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep This is a real software, should be re-written to not be promotional tone, but keep. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:35, 15 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) 00:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tend to agree that this is real software and therefore this article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from the nominator: Lots of software is real - even one I just developed myself and posted on the Internet for anybody to download, just like DHPOS. Does that automatically qualify for an article according to WP:NWEB? If so, we could have several million of these pages by now. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's real software, but that's not the question that is being posed here. The question is, "do reliable and independent secondary sources write about this software, so we can write a comprehensive and neutral article on it?". As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is "no". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:30, 30 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas

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

Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Scripps College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE James (^talk/_contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Notable that two colleges combine into one for athletics, but as noted above I think the info can be merged into the respective colleges' pages. Schools in the same division do not have separate pages for their athletic teams and it doesn't seem appropriate to start making them now. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags. Spatms (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Athenas. Spatms (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the AFD nomination itself, which points out that four separate college articles will otherwise need to cover the fact that the four colleges share a joint sports program. The article itself is not bloated, it doesn't go into a lot, but it provides a place for coverage of the joint sports teams and avoids need for repetition elsewhere. If the same material is repeated at four separate articles, then it will tend to gain inconsistencies and be hard to maintain. There is no benefit and some definite costs to the change suggested in this AFD. --doncram 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious if you actually read any of the linked articles. Three colleges share a sports program. The fourth link is to the collegiate consortium, which would naturally contain the majority of the information on the athletic program. The three individual college pages would only need a short summary with a link to the consortium page, which could go into the appropriate detail. Regardless, your comment does not address the notability issue. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:16, 21 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) 00:10, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians (social network)

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

This social network is a few days old. Seems a little soon for a page Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - full disclosure, I originally PROD'ed the article, and that was removed by an IP along with a few minor edits. I take this as a classic example of a "next big thing". It's entirely possible that this will become a large and notable social network, but this early in the piece there just isn't the coverage or notability to warrant an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Social network is 3 weeks old but I don't think it should warrant a deletion. It received widespread media attention since it launched and a significant portion of the ukrainian population has heard about it or is talking about it, and thus would want to read more about it. --- 5:08, June 8 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.147.18 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all your hands against removal. This is the most anticipated project in Ukraine, dozens of media without a stop write about this social network and 100 thousand registered users in 3 days. Such success was not even in Facebook in the first days of its existence. Of course, such excitement is associated with timeliness, but this does not cancel the dizzying success. ---Great Cockroach 007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. The article can be recreated if this social network ends up becoming notable. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What? No visibility? All Ukrainian media are very loud about this social network, Russian media are actively discussing this phenomenon. Several media in Canada and the United States have already managed to devote time to the social network. Is it worth talking about 100 thousand subscribers for 3 days? Is this not a flash mob? By the way, 180 000 users have already registered. Therefore, it's silly to talk about removing such a large-scale project, albeit temporary. ---Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for some clarity here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. None of the supporters have added credible references to the article suggesting otherwise, the only coverage is of its launch. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Power~enwiki. A Google translation of the ruwiki version says that it's clearly in beta mode:

"It is expected that the service will be fully operational within four months. Its functions will be opened gradually, upon reaching a certain number of registered users. At the moment at the opening stage there are functions "News" and "Friends". Upon reaching the threshold of 300,000 registered users, the "Notifications" function will open. Currently, the site functionality does not work in full mode, while only registration and photo change are available on the page"

Too soon. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:58, 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) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetwater Zen Center

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

Non notable organisation. Small retreat. Gets passing mentions in Buddhist publications. But nothing that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.

1 Directory listing

2 Directory listing, Primary source

3 Primary

4 Passing mention

5 Primary

6 Directory listing

7 2 again

8 Dead, text and domain suggests primary

There is still not enough coverage about this organisation in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and verging on advertorial. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:56, 20 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) 00:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is way too promotional in tone.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 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.

[1] ttp://factchecker.in/agriculture-ministry-old-schemes-renamed-other-misleading-claims/

[2] ttp://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/280516/modi-government-just-repackaging-upa-schemes-says-congress.html

[3] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/All-Modi-has-done-is-rename-our-schemes-Sonia-says-in-Maharashtra/articleshow/44787320.cms

[4] ttp://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/centre-may-widen-scheme-names-outside-nehru-gandhi-family-114091700026_1.html

[5] ttps://www.methakamminga.nl/MapleTA/TheTenPitfallsOfDigitalTesting.pdf

[6] ttp://www.maplesoft.com/Whitepapers/DelftseToetspraktijkUK.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Seisen Saunders (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wheeler (actor)}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last High}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last High}} --><!--Relisted-->
-<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song)}} --><!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHPOS (3rd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas}}<!--Relisted-->