User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:26, 6 October 2018

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon	6 years ago	2	4917	0	919.93
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy	6 years ago	2	8810	0	678.03
ICS Bégué	6 years ago	1	2980	0	513.34
Tomer Aviram	6 years ago	0	3063	0	502.57
Mukesh Patel (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	0	8349	2	474.6
DVDVideoSoft (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	2	9572	2	466.18
Portfolio.hu	6 years ago	1	9672	2	451.2
Edris Armaghani	6 years ago	0	2497	1	445.84
Shawn David Thompson	6 years ago	0	2206	0	443.9
Sallam SK	6 years ago	3	5073	2	419.59
Lordhair	6 years ago	1	1690	0	418.47
Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)	6 years ago	1	1944	0	409.04
Story Discussion	6 years ago	1	2184	0	407.49
Apidura	6 years ago	1	1857	0	406.48
Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK	6 years ago	1	2168	0	404.85
Dillon International	6 years ago	1	3493	2	398.48
Mickey's 90th Spectacular	6 years ago	0	1609	0	396.49
Whitney Woerz	6 years ago	1	5320	3	394.26
Kaido (company)	6 years ago	0	3225	0	393.3
Russell (rapper)	6 years ago	1	3112	0	390.51
Space Launcher System	6 years ago	1	5416	2	378.92
Karl Ducks	6 years ago	0	2301	0	375.43
Nishu Jha (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	0	1268	0	375.07
Lord Lord Lord	6 years ago	0	1564	0	371.74
Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)	6 years ago	0	1632	0	371.72

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center#Four Diamonds. Clear consensus to delete and redirect -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon

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

We have just deleted & redirected the Four Diamonds Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund. This is the article on its annual fund-raising event. The extraordinary detail makes it clear that the intent is promotional. The references are local, and the event is non notable..

See also the adjacent AfD for the AfD on an even less notable related organization. The contents are very similar. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep an annual event that raises $10 million per year is likely to be notable. This appears to get coverage from media across Pennsylvania and not just in the State College, Pennsylvania area; [1] [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

the appropriate part of the material is already included in the main article. A redirect would make sense. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete or redirect charity fundraisers are pretty much routine on any large college campus. Like 1 per weekend per campus. Media coverage is basically routine and not independent. This one is big - if there is any independent source for saying it's the biggest, I missed it. All the refs look mildly promotional and non-independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete as promotional; as DGG writes this kind of detail can't be anything else; no objection to a non-spam recreation. Sandstein 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete as promotional and lacking any good sources to establish WP:N. All the sources in the article are first-party or local to the school. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2018 (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 delete. The "keep" arguments here are simply not policy-based. Consensus is that the subject is not notable, and can and should be covered within the numerous other existing articles. No prejudice against userfication for the purposes of merging the content. Swarm talk 00:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy

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

Not an 'Italian denomination'. It is a Christian denomination headquartered in the United States with a presence in Italy. JWs in Italy are not a significant proportion of the Italian population (0.4%) or of JWs worldwide (3%). Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Statistics for JWs' presence in Italy are at Jehovah's Witnesses by country. If there is other pertinent information related to government recognition/interaction, it can be added to Religion in Italy and/or Jehovah's Witnesses and governments where relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete - I agree that there are no country-specific "Jehovah's Witnesses denominations", the JWs are a Christian denomination, however. This is also supported by the fact that the listed official site is the same as the official site of the Watch Tower. I've not checked the Italian Wikipedia, but it's not impossible that "denomination" was a mistranslation for "branch" or equivalent. When there are JW splinter groups, those don't share the same site and are also termed as such. There is nothing particularly notable about the JWs in Italy for a separate article (and there is no relevant material in Religion in Italy that'd be too large and need a split). —Paleo Neonate – 12:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment -- There is almost enough here to keep. It is clearly not a separate denomination, but the emanation of a foreign denomination in a particular country might be enough to justify an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep. From a strictly religious/denominational point of view, it is not a separate denomination. But, being the emanation of a foreign denomination in a particular country makes it worth of an article, as User:Peterkingiron argued. More importantly, from a legal point of view, the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy" is a religious body in Italy and, as such, signed an agreement with the Italian government (not yet law). Italy's Jehovah's Witnesses are not many in absolute terms, but, as far as I understand, Italy is the country with the largest proportion of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Checco (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a single sentence that could easily be merged in Jehovah's Witnesses and governments (and if they have a particular proportion, another that could be in Jehovah's Witnesses by country), hardly enough coverage to write a separate article... —Paleo Neonate – 13:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
All religious bodies which signed agreements with the Italian government have an article in en.Wikipedia. If this is too short, it might be expanded, but not deleted. The subject of this article is encyclopedic, indeed, no matter the article's length. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses is certainly a notable topic for encyclopedic coverage and is already given broad coverage, but JWs in Italy (or in country x generally) is not. The claim that JWs make up a notable proportion of Italy's population, even in comparison to JW presence in other countries, is demonstrably false. At about 0.4% of the population based on official JW figures, their presence is less than that in about 20 countries, ignoring countries with a population less than 1 million (and JW figures indicate 58 "lands" with a higher proportion of JWs than Italy). Even if only countries with more than 50 million people are considered, Mexico (0.67%) still has a higher proportion of JWs than Italy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a determining factor, and it may be that articles about other minor denominations in a particular country where presence is even more minor are also not required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

My main argument is that the subject has a legal status per se and is worth of an article, similarly to all the other religious bodies which have signed agreements with the Italian government. I agree with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I also cherish consistency and completeness. For readers' sake, it is better to provide a separate article on this subject, as for the other Italian religious bodies. --Checco (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

An organisation 'having a legal status' in a particular country does not automatically warrant (and certainly doesn't necessitate) an article specifically about that organisation in that country, and this also applies to the unspecified 'other Italian religious bodies'. (Or should we create McDonald's in Italy as well?) I'm fairly certain that the 'agreements with Italy' don't contain a clause 'guaranteeing them a Wikipedia article' (even if the agreement is at some point ratified). Articles such as Religion in Italy, Christianity in Italy, Jehovah's Witnesses and governments etc can capture the minutiae about minor groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The argument that other denominations in Italy also have articles is also not a particularly good rationale since you are the creator of this article and you are also the creator of the other articles (e.g. Apostolic Church in Italy, Italian Buddhist Union, Italian Union of Seventh-day Adventist Christian Churches, Evangelical Christian Church of the Brethren, Methodist Evangelical Church in Italy).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

My impression is the same. It's possible that IT Wikipedia doesn't have the same notability criteria EN one does, too... —Paleo Neonate – 20:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, en.W has looser notability standards and a more inclusionist approach than it.W. --Checco (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete or merge. In fact, this should go to all of the articles that Jeffro77 linked above. There is no notability (WP:N). Allowing them in Wikipedia will justify the proliferation of useless articles like this one for each country in the world. Next, cities and neighborhoods. That the Italian government attaches a legal status to all foreign religions in Italy does not fulfill the notability requirements. Rosario (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

@User:Peterkingiron: Are you for keeping the article or deleting it? Can you please explain? Many thanks. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep -- I do not like voting to keep articles on such religious groups, but if they really have 3000 congregations and 500k members + supporters, the national emanation is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(That's an unusual use of the word emanation; JWs don't emanate from Italy, and it's not a good synonym for either branch or presence.) Presence as a proportion of the population would be a better indication of notability, but notability for our purposes here is determined by discussion of the subject in reliable sources, not by the size of a subset of the group. But if we were to assess based on the numbers alone, JWs make up less than 1% of Italy's population (less than 0.5% by official JW figures). JW beliefs and activities in Italy are not remarkably different to their activities generically, which are given broad coverage in Wikipedia already. Recognition of the denomination by the Italian government, if notable, can be adequately covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a notable organisation and, as such, signed an agreement with the Italian government. I think this is article is worth for consistency with similar articles about religious groups and denominations in Italy. Putting Italy aside, I would favour an article on JWs by country. Just take a look to Category:Catholic Church by country, Category:Protestantism by country, Category:Islam by country, Category:Hinduism by country, etc. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability of the denomination has not been contested, and it is already given broad coverage on Wikipedia, and 'signing an agreement with the Italian government' is not a criterion for an article. Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy are not a significant proportion of either the population of Italy or Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. Catholicism and Protestantism are major Christian denominations (and strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses is a form of Protestantism via the Bible Student movement via Adventism via Millerism) and Islam and Hinduism are entire religions; the comparison would therefore constitute undue weight to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. There's really nothing in this article other than the fact that it exists and a few numerical statistics. That's not enough to base an article on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete since the subject does not possess verifiable, independent notability. The most we get from sources is that the subject (a) exists, and (b) is officially recognized as a religious organization. Far from enough. Then, Merge (i.e. drop a mention or two) into the article "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments". -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2018 (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 merge to IONIS Education Group. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

ICS Bégué

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

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) => No secondary quality source focused on the subject of the article.

For information : This article has already been removed from Wikipedia fr for this reason. EulerObama (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: regarding the french wikipedia AfD:

It's from 2008, which is rather old.
It was not done for this reason, but because the proponent said: "not an exceptional private school", which is a rather thin argument.
It did not advocate removal, but merge with IONIS Education Group.

Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Comte0 you can merge. I don't see any secondary source focused on this school and this school is not notable. It's just a random private school.--EulerObama (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

merge to IONIS Education Group, i agree with the discussion above. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
merge as suggested' reasonable compromise DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 6 October 2018 (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 delete. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Tomer Aviram

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

WP:TOOSOON biography of a director that does not meet WP:GNG. Sources provided in this article include multiple film databases, an interview, and coverage of a TV show Aviram directed and a play he wrote. No coverage of the director in reliable sources beyond mere mentions in connection to the show The Good Cop (Israel). Google searches for Israeli publications and going through the Hebrew language wikipedia page didn't turn up anything more significant (although it did include more coverage of The Good Cop in Ha'aretz). There is no mention of awards or other recognitions won, and thus does not meet any of the subject-specific guideline criteria at WP:DIRECTOR.

I was going to Draftify per WP:NPP guidelines for articles with borderline notability, but the draftification was blocked by another article already existing at that target, which appears to have been improperly marked for speedy deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep People here are too quick on the draw when it comes to deleting new articles. This one is OK, and can be expanded. Oppose deletion. --Geewhiz (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably Keep. created a TV show, The Good Cop that has now become a U.S. TV show. Article claims that he crated a second bluelinked show Eretz Nehederet and makes claims about a 2001 film, these claims - not mentioned by Nom - would nee to be disproven, but it looks to me as though they may just need to be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR per nom. May one day meet guidelines for notability, but not today. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR. Agree that the director may become more notible in the future, but currently fails notablility guidelines. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:28, 13 October 2018 (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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mukesh Patel

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

This guy certainly has got loads of money and that's undoubted given that he has got some trivial mentions as a (5 crore INR) bidder of a suite worn by Narendra Modi.

Has got some trivial mentions in his role as to the Patidar agitation by Hardik Patel.

Some coverage in unreliable sites like <www.gujaratheadline.com>, <patelsamaj.co.in>, <National Herald> are located.

Overall, there is a complete dearth of any significant coverage on him that would make him pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG.

Do not confuse with other Mukesh Patel-s. ∯WBG^converse 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This Article should be in the Wikipedia as we can easily find So many Reliable Sources in it. Each and every Tex and Paragraph is written on the basis of Highly Regional and National Reliable Sources, Like Divya Bhaskar, ABP Asmita, VTV-Gujarati, The Indian Express, The Financial Express, National Herald (India), The Pioneer and many more.

This Article is also reviewed by many Users and Administrators.

Moreover, 5 crore INR bidder of Narendra Modi's Suite and Role in Patidar agitation by Hardik Patel, He is also a Social Worker, Trustee at Ashadeep Group of Schools and a Big Business Magnate which you can verify it from the Source like Divya Bhaskar which is Biggest Gujarati News Paper at this time

So, by considering all these things, He should be on Wikipedia

Radadiyageet (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Radadiyageet, National Herald is as reliable as Fox-news is.anything that can be reasonably exploited to generate an anti-Modi-image and they latch onto it.Sort of a competitor of RepublicTV.As to rest, utter rubbish. ∯WBG^converse 11:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think The time has come to remove Deletion Template from the Article Mukesh Patel as It is found as a notable from the reliable sources. Radadiyageet (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Hi Radadiyageet I am not entirely convinced if this subject merits an article. can you provide the actual links of the above sources that you are using to claim notability, that will probably help your cause. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear DBig Xrayᗙ, Please find the bolow links as required

Divya Bhaskar (Biggest Gujarati newspaper showing Biography of Mukesh Patel)

Link 1: https://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/DGUJ-SUR-c-99-surati-industrialist-mukesh-patel-birth-day-know-story-of-successful-person-NOR.html?seq=1

Link 2:

https://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/DGUJ-SUR-HMU-MAT-latest-surat-news-033003-1398089-NOR.html

ABP Asmita

Link: https://abpasmita.abplive.in/surat/it-raid-at-surats-businessman-mukesh-patel-home-102919#image1

VTV-Gujarati

Link: https://www.vtvgujarati.com/news-details/news_detail-22070

The Indian Express

Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/narendra-modis-suit-sold-for-rs-4-31-crore/

The Financial Express

Link: https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/pm-narendra-modis-controversial-pinstripe-bandhgala-suit-up-for-auction-today/44261/

National Herald (India)

Link: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/gujarat-assembly-elections-2017/bjp-its-pawn-mukesh-patel-tried-every-trick-to-bring-hardik-down-only-to-see-his-popularity-rise

The Pioneer (newspaper)

Link: https://www.dailypioneer.com/2015/page1/modis-suit-raises-rs431-cr-for-ganga-mission.html

The Telegraph (Calcutta)

Link: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/threat-to-patel-bjp-meet/cid/1517492

India News

Link: https://www.inkhabar.com/national/23862-video-hardik-patel-cousin-brother-caught-sting-operation-while-taking-money

India TV

Link: https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-hardik-patel-in-soup-after-video-shows-cousin-taking-rs-30-lakh-bribe-347178

BBC Gujarati

Link: https://www.bbc.com/gujarati/india-43903146

The Times of India

Link: http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31805&articlexml=SURATS-TOP-REAL-ESTATE-GROUP-BAGS-AN-AWARD-27052015103005

Ahmedabad Mirror

Link: https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/others/articleshow/46305073.cms

After reading all these above News Articles, you will get to know about everything written on Wikipedia article Mukesh Patel is based on the reliable sources.

So now Please remove deletion template from the Top in Article Mukesh Patel as it follows notability guidelines of the Wikipedia completely. Radadiyageet (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete: advertorially-toned BLP, with sources that are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; too promotional to consider keeping in the first place. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nomination this strictly promotional article on a subject that distinctly lacks Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2018 (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 merge to Free Studio. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

DVDVideoSoft

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

Fails WP:NCORP just like the last time it was deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Free Studio

I am also nominating the following related pages because had prod but is a related article and merge candidate:

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

Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As nominator of this AfD, I support deleting the other article, since I'm the one who PRODded it. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Comment DVDVideoSoft and merge 'Free Studio'. We are actually interested in the software and Google Books and Google Scholar full a number of results, albeit a lot of false results (Religious books for me) and a lot of little more than passing mentions in how it has been used. It's implausible there are not offline reviews of this. Probably needs to be under WP:NSOFTWARE rather than WP:NCORP so perhaps Free Studio should stand as the main article. I am minded WP:BEFORE may not have been adequate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
What's inadequate is WP:NSOFTWARE, which is only an essay on notability, so the notability of software is under WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've done a little with the referencing/cites/recoveries which now spans about 10 years and remain believed there is sufficient for keep as a merged article about the software product (bundle). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Free Studio (and Keep Free Studio - several sources, passes GNG) as notability comes from the software - the software looks notable, the company doesn't based on current sources. Saying that, if more sources are out there ping me. Widefox; talk 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Merge I agree that the software appears notable but the article on the company fails WP:NCORP. Merge to Free Studio. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

DVDVideoSoft should be merged to Free Studio as Free Studio is notable per WP:NSOFTWARE. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
NSOFTWARE is an essay so is not enough for notability. (only in edge cases) wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard that either would be deleted or both. If WP:NSOFTWARE is inaccurate then what is our guideline? A ten years old software with coverage in multiple reliable sources should continue having stand alone article. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Our guidelines are both WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. wumbolo ^^^ 15:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion is tainted by the ANI. I'm not inclined to vote while that is so recent. Szzuk (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Szzuk, No ANI has been mentioned in this discussion to this point until you have brought it up, and you have not identified the particular ANI in question. And that ANI, if it is the one I am thinking of, was in my option raised due the the disruption fallout from PRODs and AfDs. Now in my opinion there is no plausible outcome from this discussion up to this point apart from a merge to 'Free Studio', and to some degree I have implicitly given a commitment to attempt a good faith merge (unless someone else volunteers and does it right) should merge be the final outcome. From my point of view the sooner that is done, dusted and cleared the less disruption it is to me and likely Wikipedia in general. At the risk of tainting HighKing (if I recall rightly, and I may not, I think we have on occasion voted differently at AfDs and maybe have connected on some Ireland related articles), I in good faith believe him to be independent and not tainted by the ANI or other associated fracious AfD discussions in this set, and suggest closer notes this. From my point of view I would prefer a WP:BOLD closer decision on this rather than a relist due to upcoming effort required in the merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge per User:Widefox. Modernponderer (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2018 (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Portfolio.hu

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE, WP:NNEWSPAPER, claims to high readership are not verifiable (and are not criteria for notability; if a publication is widely read, there will be independent coverage of it) and neither Portfolio.hu nor the lone independent source appear to have ever been mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard. Corresponding article on the Hungarian wiki does not appear to have any reliable sources cited either.

Based on their talk page, the article's creator tried to create a similar page earlier at Portfolio (media company), got denied at AfC due to not demonstrating notability, and then abandoned the draft. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

This is a response to the comment above: the claims made on high readership are verifiable, they are explicitly mentioned in Hungarian articles of independent, major newsoutlets writing about the latest Gemius audit reports on which online news site made it into the top segment in Hungary. Thus the statement on this is wrong. English sources are not available on this, but that is also the case for many foreign newspapers, and it is not a criteria for verifiability, as the foreign language sources can easily be translated. This news site is listed among the oldest and biggest economic journals in Hungary, which is regularly cited in Hungarian media. This statement can also be verified, though it is not currently cited. I believe that this fact has to translate into adequate notability with respect to Hungarian news sites. Reaching such readership as cited in a small country of 10 million puts it in comparison to leading news sites in advanved countries, such as the US. A less relevant note, but it seems to me the notability of most other Hungarian news sites currently covered in this wiki's corresponding section could be attacked in a similar fashion, which I do not see as justified. _signed,bence.andras ^talk 09:40, 14 September 2018 CEST

Please add citations that are not from portfolio.hu itself, but from independent sources. The Hungarian Wikipedia is more extensive, but still would not be acceptable here due to lack of third-party sources. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have added two additional, independent third-party sources, which both explicitly mention Portfolio.hu's readership statistics, and confirm the ~1 mln/month number. One of them explicitly states that Portfolio.hu has been the most read financial newspaper in Hungary up to last year, when it was overtaken by a competitor, and came in second place. The article is thus correctly worded that it is "one of the most read" financial newspapers in Hungary, but not the most read. This fact justifies, that it is a notable newspaper in Hungary. Now, three independent sources are put in place to verify this information. The citation for portfoliocsoport.hu actually is not a self-reference, but it includes references to some DKT Gemius auditor data, that is why I believe that it is acceptable to provide that as a source as well. DKT Gemius is a paid audit service in Hungary, however, I am not sure if it is freely available._signed,bence.andras ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing additional citations, they do appear to back up the claims made by the article. The only remaining concern is that while these websites appear to justify these claims, they still don't discuss the subject in-depth, as nominally required by WP:GNG. WP:NNEWSPAPER, which is a relevant subject-specific essay, says that a periodical can be considered notable if it has made a significant impact in its field. Interpreted charitably, portfolio.hu's high readership would clear this hurdle, but it seems odd that a subject specific guideline for newspapers doesn't explicitly say that high readership demonstrates notability (although this could perhaps be explained away due to it being an essay, and not a guideline or policy). I'm tempted to say that notability has been demonstrated, but I would like other editors to chime in as well before withdrawing my nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep per bence.andras's statement above:
I have added two additional, independent third-party sources, which both explicitly mention Portfolio.hu's readership statistics, and confirm the ~1 mln/month number. One of them explicitly states that Portfolio.hu has been the most read financial newspaper in Hungary up to last year, when it was overtaken by a competitor, and came in second place.
That a source verifies that until last year, "Portfolio.hu [was] the most read financial newspaper in Hungary" establishes it is notable.
Cunard (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep. The claims made in the article to significance are backed up by the sources, they need translating and re-reading etc as foreign language, but I can't see any problem with notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fails GNG. Readership numbers and other popularity measures are not a reason to keep. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Weak keep – Unsure about WP:GNG but seems to be widely known in Hungary. There are a few sources that are independent but personally I think they are sufficient. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:18, 8 October 2018 (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. Lourdes 15:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Edris Armaghani

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no independent reliable sources. There are a few English sources in the article, but they do not appear to be independent. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2018 (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 delete. Tone 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Shawn David Thompson

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

BLP appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2018 (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 delete. Tone 08:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Sallam SK

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

This looks like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED and there is no evidence of satisfying either WP:BIO or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews etc. James500 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment James500, but the sources on GNews are not independent of the subject and provide nothing beyond passing mention which is insufficient to establish independent notability and being a Manager of a notable person does not automatically make him notable. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete as it stands, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. No prejudice on recreation. SportingFlyer talk 20:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG.[3][4] Wikipedia does have articles on managers of other notable people. Excelse (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

First, ghafla.com seems to be an unreliable source and a link to pulselive.co.ke is insufficient to establish independent notability. Also, if other stuff exists, then they can be dealt with in the appropriate venue(s) as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG, needs independent reliable sources for this to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2018 (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Lordhair

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

No evidence that this is a notable product, and little coverage. None of the English sources cited (9 of the 10) contributes to notability. Most are the company's own publicity. Largoplazo (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete - Sources are press releases or passing mentions. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete, advert for hair loss products.Szzuk (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)

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

Deprodded without comment or improvement. Non-notable short film. Searches did not turn up anything near enough to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom - WP:GNG and WP:NFILM definitely not met. No notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Even short films by notable directors can be hard to source, but short films by non-notable directors are often near-impossible to references in accordance with the notability guideline for films. This short is no exception. Sam Sailor 08:50, 6 October 2018 (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 Draft. Moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Story Discussion

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

Non-notable web series. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSERIES and WP:WEB due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flooded with them hundreds 13:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep or move to a draft, I am still working on the article, it might take me some more time before I finish it. JengaMan77 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Move to draft per above. Seemingly it has potential and we might be close to having a article for this subject. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Move to draft Not sure why this AfD is still on when the creator of the article himself recommended moving to draft. At this current state it is not satisfying WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2018 (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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Apidura

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

This recent AfC approve contains only references to niche sources, blogs, and reviews. The writeup in The Guardian is a passing mention and an interview. A look for more reliable references didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo: You referred to WP:BIO, but this article is about a company, not a person. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-trout. Cited the wrong notability guideline on accident. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment – Included few RS, as that of ′UK Govt. Companies House′, ′Company Check UK′, ′Companies London′ having valid company registration info. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no dispute, of course, that the company does exist. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NCOMPANY. FitIndia ^Talk 05:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment Some of the references are from significant sources. Bikeradar is the world's most comprehensive online cycling resource and neither Cyclist or Road.cc are niche publications. There are references from both The Guardian and Evening Standard. Please let me know what type of sources would be helpful in supporting notability. Bemoremike (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bemoremike is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2018 (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 redirect to Reverend and The Makers. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK

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

Non-notable album by a notable band. All tracks are on other releases. A search for the album comes up with very little- as it stands, it did not chart in any market and therefore fails WP:NALBUM. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Reverend and The Makers; I think that's typical for non-notable albums of notable bands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
A redirect to the artist article Reverend and The Makers as a categorized {{R from album}} and {{R with possibilities}} is the policy-based solution per WP:ATD-R. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings can be met. Sam Sailor 08:24, 6 October 2018 (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 delete. Based on general discussion and appraisal of sources it appears the subject fails NCORP. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Dillon International

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

An advertortorially-toned page on an unremarkable adoption agency. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 08:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I found a few sources, but nothing that is both significant coverage and a reliable source. Fails WP:NCORP.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete fails NCORP with significant coverage in RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable to me as one of the two foreign agencies to have the approval of the Vietnamese government for the adoption of children - [5][6][7]. There is coverage of the organisation all over the world - [8][9][10]. The article needs rewriting, but that's a different issue. Hzh (talk)
- Note to closing admin The bulk of the above linked sources are not in English so they may need to be checked by someone with the appropriate language skills or a good translator service in order to determine if they meet the standard for the new and improved NCORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Nom's comment about sources. They are accessible via Google translate, and are routine news item, passing mentions, and / or rewarmed press releases (WP:SPIP). For example:

The Korean National Association of Korean Music (Texas) branch participated in a Korean adoptee camp organized by Dillon International held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, from Thursday 26th to 28th. [11]
On September 16, 2014, the Ministry of Justice awarded operation licenses to two US organizations, Dillon International and Holt International Children's Services, to operate in the field of foreign adoption in Vietnam after the adoption agreement. interrupted 2008. Nguyen Van Trong, in charge of the Dillon Internationnal office, was delighted at the opportunity to smile again with the little girl. [12]
Under the new agreement, there will be only two adoption agencies — Dillon International Inc. and Holt International Children’s Services Inc. — licensed to operate in Vietnam. (the only mention in the piece) [13], in English.

Etc. None of this meets WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion, nor a replacement for a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2018 (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 Draft. Moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mickey's 90th Spectacular

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

The disney fan club is not a reliable source. We're an encyclopedia, not a TV guide that published announcements for upcoming TV specials. Vexations (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Incubate in draft space. Doesn't appear to meet notability and verifiability guidelines right now, but I'm certain it will after it airs next month. — Newslinger talk 12:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Draft-ify I'm not nearly as confident as Newslinger that this will be notable after it airs, but it's worth a shot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 9 October 2018 (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 keep. Tone 17:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitney Woerz

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

Non-notable singer lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment-As stated, google news does show multiple independent sources (thought they are not highly credible). Other editors may please review and suggest. (Exploreandwrite (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC))

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment - on one hand, she has toured nationally, one factor to show notability (assuming they're true), but on the other hand, there are no reliable sources. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist . No !votes to gain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong Delete – It appears that about half of the sources (at least) are promo; article also appears to be promo. Absolutely no reason this article is needed here – doesn't pass any notability guidelines that apply (WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICs). Nom is correct that this is WP:TOOSOON. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep, her best song on youtube has 40 million views, second best 20 million, that is a lot. The refs and article give the impression she's a nobody but that isn't the case, I was half way to writing delete myself. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Weak keep per at-least-modest coverage: [14] [15] [16] wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 7 October 2018 (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 delete. czar 19:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Kaido (company)

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

Searching for sources, I am not finding anything demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I hope I'm responding to this in the right place. If I'm not, please let me know the correct place to move this to.

I believe that Kaido does have significant notability. There are three reasons I think this.

1. The guidelines state that the subject should have received "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe that there are multiple examples of this coverage including:

http://www.midlandsbusinessnews.co.uk/kaido-wins-eit-health-award/ (An article by a local newspaper)
http://birmingham.livingmag.co.uk/kaido/ (A full company profile by a UK-wide magazine)
http://www.bqlive.co.uk/innovation/2016/05/12/news/kaido-secures-50-000-investment-to-launch-new-software-2408/ (An article on the company raising finance from a well known local news publication).

While I appreciate that this is on the lower-end of the scale of notability compared to many articles, I believe it does meet the threshold.

2. The coverage ranges in time over 3 years which fits with the guidance in WP:GNG that "notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"

3. The company is growing strongly and has now over 150 companies, city councils and NHS Trusts using its software. While there are not yet citeable sources for this information, I believe that the page will grow in its references and its usefulness to the public over the coming months.

Thanks for taking the time to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihid (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete: My reading of the available sources (including those listed above) is that they are a mix of local coverage and routine announcements of funding and awards that are not intrinsically notable. While these demonstrate that this is a company going about its business, I don't see the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH. Of the three references mentioned by Ihid, the first is a non-notable award announcement excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, the second is an anonymous writeup from a magazine with no list of editors, and the third is a capital transaction announcement excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. The company can qualify for an article when there are enough high-quality sources in the future, but that's not the case right now. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the analysis of sources above, they fail the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any sources that do, therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 20 October 2018 (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Russell (rapper)

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability are resting almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources rather than reliable source coverage in media. Of the 18 footnotes here, 15 are blogs or social media posts or directly affiliated websites -- and of the just three references that are actually to reliable media, two are brief unsubstantive blurbs. The one citation to the New York Daily News is much stronger than anything else, so that's certainly a start toward making him notable enough for inclusion -- but it doesn't finish the job of getting him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only valid starter source on offer. As always, it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a musician over NMUSIC, it's the quality of the referencing that can be provided to support the truth of the claim -- and the referencing here simply isn't cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete While it is better than many of these music articles, one erstwhile reliable source (New York Daily News) does not make for significant coverage. With no awards, no non-blurb reviews in significant music periodicals, and no significant charting, he fails WP:CREATIVE. The blurb in Hip Hop Weekly seems to have been just that. --Bejnar (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2018 (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Space Launcher System

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

This stub has been totally unsourced since its inception in 2011. I performed a WP:BEFORE search looking for books written in the 20th century, as any significant 1960s project should be covered in that scope of publications.[17] I found nothing about this project, only a few mentions of a generic "space launcher system" that could be developed in Europe or Russia in the future. Consequently, given the high probability of confusion with the current Space Launch System, this article should be removed. Apparently there is some real history of discussions about the Titan I potential upgrades, but there is no indication that an actual project plan called "Space Launcher System" ever existed, and if it did it would not meet WP:GNG until ample coverage in WP:RS can be exhibited. — JFG ^talk 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. We can confirm its existence – it gets a passing mention in Historical Guide to NASA and the Space Program, but only to say that it is a USAF project from the 1960s and nothing to do with the NASA program. SpinningSpark 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The creator of the article is too pissed with you all to come here himself, but tells me that the source was Heppenheimer. He cannot remember the name of the book, but it may have been The Space Shuttle Decision: Nasa's Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle. On the basis of that, I think we should AGF that this actually is reliably sourced, even if the source is currently uncertain. I have put in a request for verification of this source at WP:LIB. SpinningSpark 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: The Space Shuttle Decision is available at the Internet Archive. It does not contain the search term, but does describe a USAF launcher with boosters which may be the same thing. Heppenheimer's Countdown : A History of Space Flight, which I have on loan, also does not contain the term. SpinningSpark 15:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Many thanks for the background information. I don't think Wikipedia should keep an article based on a made-up term, especially as it can easily be confused with the Space Launch System. Certainly this project could be mentioned in articles about Titan I, Titan III, USAF, or the Space Shuttle. There's not enough material to salvage for a dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: It's not a made-up term. The NASA source I linked in my first comment uses this exact name (capitalised as a proper noun and identified as a USAF 1960s project). SpinningSpark 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was only referring to the Heppenheimer books, which apparently discuss the USAF project without naming it that. The "Historical Guide" source only mentions "Space Launcher System" in a short note in its "Space Launch System" entry, to warn readers against confusion. We can't hang our article title on this only. Irrespective of the name, we are far from demonstrating WP:GNG yet. I have downloaded the 1999 book from Internet Archive and looked for passages discussing boosters: they mostly debate the pros and cons of reusability and refer to possible evolutions of Titan III. What is the exact passage you referred to when saying the book describes "a USAF launcher with boosters which may be the same thing"? I'd like to see which concept we are talking about. Note on page 353 the authors state: This diversity of boosters meant that there now was no clear reason to choose any of them. The wide range of alternatives recalled the era of the late 1960s, when a hundred flowers had bloomed and when neither NASA nor the Air Force had yet developed a convincing idea of how a shuttle should look. If this USAF concept was indeed one of those "hundred flowers", why should it be elevated above others? Engineers from various contractors discussed plenty of variants, but it does not look like this one got any substantial-enough traction to become encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 10:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Now you've challenged me, I'm not quite sure what I was looking at when I said that. It was probably the drawing on page 87. But on a closer look, that is the Titan IIIM for which we already have an article. EDIT: There is also a discussion of USAF design research on the preceding pages, but it is far from clear whether any of it has to do the subject here. I'm ok with a merge and redirect or dab page to a suitable article. SpinningSpark 11:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the article creator could shed some light on the naming? @Maury Markowitz: You wrote: It was from one of Heppenheimer's books, perhaps The Space Shuttle Decision. But it was over 7 years ago, I really can't say. Looking at those books, we have not seen the term "Space Launcher System", but we have seen discussion of various engineering options by the USAF, NASA and industry contractors. Do you have first-hand knowledge besides what you remember reading in such books? The contents of the article as it stands could be folded into Titan I, Titan IIIC, Titan IIIM, Space Shuttle and X-20 Dyna Soar. However the assertions made must be sourced, and the article title must go if we can't find well-sourced corroboration. Any help appreciated. — JFG ^talk 13:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so others can say something, and the current two participants can continue to "debate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Never mind the rocket science minutiae above, an article with zero sources in the actual article even after three weeks of AfD will realistically never get any and therefore needs to go per WP:V. Sandstein 18:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I think it is Space Launching System. While I have found a couple of usage as Launcher, I think Launching is the correct word. Of course the overused same TLA of SLS for similar systems makes it difficult to find the right sources. The article Aerojet M-1 mentions Launcher which is probably this article, but no inline sources so it is hard to know which source to use. This article should be Moved/Renamed if sources agree. StrayBolt (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2018 (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 delete. Tone 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Karl Ducks

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

A7 declined. Was PROD'd and de-PROD'd in 2009 so must be taken to AfD.

I can't find any sources mentioning this person at all, anywhere. The source presently in the article is dead (or at least it is for me), and although the main website Nation News loads, the archive area [18] does not (this could be a browser issue).

I searched Google under Karl and Carl Ducks, and tried appending +Barbados, +comedy, and +comedian. No results, not even trivial mentions, when searching the standard Google, GBooks, GNews, GScholar. The Barbados Advocate and Barbados Today newspapers returned no results, although neither website is clear about how far their archives go back online. Caribbean News Now only goes back to 2010. I've done my best to look for other online Barbadian newspaper archives but haven't found an archive that covers the relevant time period.

I also checked Highbeam and Newspapers.com just in case, although they are US-oriented, and found no relevant hits (again, not even trivial mentions).

I'm stumped as to where else I could search. In the absence of sources, I don't think we can keep this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 13:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete, a stub, nothing on google, books returning lots of karls ducking. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete one source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2018 (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 delete. Sandstein 18:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nishu Jha

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

BLP article doesn't have notable references and the person is not notable enough to be on wikipedia. TheRedBox (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete inadequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2018 (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 redirect to GOOD Fridays. Tone 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Lord Lord Lord

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

Completing AfD nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to GOOD Fridays. Not notable enough on its own, but the target list already has an entry for this song. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 17 October 2018 (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 redirect to K.T.S.E.. Tone 08:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect. I'm leaning towards redirecting this to K.T.S.E. for now as most of the coverage seems to refer to the song in the context of the album. Ss112 18:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to K.T.S.E. per Ss112. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 8 October 2018 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 03:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon|Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon]]||{{Time ago|20180927010411}}||2||4917||0||'''905.18'''
+|[[#Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon|Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon]]||{{Time ago|20180927010411}}||2||4917||0||'''919.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy|Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy]]||{{Time ago|20180930025605}}||2||8810||0||'''663.29'''
+|[[#Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy|Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy]]||{{Time ago|20180930025605}}||2||8810||0||'''678.03'''
 |-
-|[[#ICS Bégué|ICS Bégué]]||{{Time ago|20181004015229}}||1||2980||0||'''498.6'''
+|[[#ICS Bégué|ICS Bégué]]||{{Time ago|20181004015229}}||1||2980||0||'''513.34'''
 |-
-|[[#Tomer Aviram|Tomer Aviram]]||{{Time ago|20181004221411}}||0||3063||0||'''487.82'''
+|[[#Tomer Aviram|Tomer Aviram]]||{{Time ago|20181004221411}}||0||3063||0||'''502.57'''
 |-
-|[[#Portfolio.hu|Portfolio.hu]]||{{Time ago|20181005015900}}||0||9029||2||'''486.45'''
+|[[#Mukesh Patel |Mukesh Patel (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20181005105000}}||0||8349||2||'''474.6'''
 |-
-|[[#Waterflame|Waterflame]]||{{Time ago|20181005105000}}||0||2654||1||'''465.06'''
+|[[#DVDVideoSoft |DVDVideoSoft (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20181003113400}}||2||9572||2||'''466.18'''
 |-
-|[[#Mukesh Patel |Mukesh Patel (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20181005105000}}||0||8349||2||'''459.85'''
+|[[#Portfolio.hu|Portfolio.hu]]||{{Time ago|20181005015900}}||1||9672||2||'''451.2'''
 |-
-|[[#DVDVideoSoft |DVDVideoSoft (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20181003113400}}||2||9572||2||'''451.44'''
+|[[#Edris Armaghani|Edris Armaghani]]||{{Time ago|20181005220100}}||0||2497||1||'''445.84'''
 |-
-|[[#Racci Shay |Racci Shay (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20181006015900}}||0||3614||2||'''434.46'''
+|[[#Shawn David Thompson|Shawn David Thompson]]||{{Time ago|20181005174611}}||0||2206||0||'''443.9'''
 |-
-|[[#Sad Boy Loko|Sad Boy Loko]]||{{Time ago|20181006020600}}||0||3113||2||'''434.14'''
+|[[#Sallam SK|Sallam SK]]||{{Time ago|20181003103200}}||3||5073||2||'''419.59'''
 |-
-|[[#Christopher Ingram|Christopher Ingram]]||{{Time ago|20181006020600}}||0||3316||2||'''433.8'''
+|[[#Lordhair|Lordhair]]||{{Time ago|20181005143150}}||1||1690||0||'''418.47'''
 |-
-|[[#Edris Armaghani|Edris Armaghani]]||{{Time ago|20181005220100}}||0||2497||1||'''431.1'''
+|[[#Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)|Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)]]||{{Time ago|20181005173955}}||1||1944||0||'''409.04'''
 |-
-|[[#Shawn David Thompson|Shawn David Thompson]]||{{Time ago|20181005174611}}||0||2206||0||'''429.15'''
+|[[#Story Discussion|Story Discussion]]||{{Time ago|20181005131458}}||1||2184||0||'''407.49'''
 |-
-|[[#Mike Wilson (filmmaker)|Mike Wilson (filmmaker)]]||{{Time ago|20181005125325}}||1||1721||0||'''408.67'''
+|[[#Apidura|Apidura]]||{{Time ago|20181005182554}}||1||1857||0||'''406.48'''
 |-
-|[[#Sallam SK|Sallam SK]]||{{Time ago|20181003103200}}||3||5073||2||'''404.84'''
+|[[#Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK|Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK]]||{{Time ago|20181005140635}}||1||2168||0||'''404.85'''
 |-
-|[[#Lordhair|Lordhair]]||{{Time ago|20181005143150}}||1||1690||0||'''403.72'''
+|[[#Dillon International|Dillon International]]||{{Time ago|20181006020800}}||1||3493||2||'''398.48'''
 |-
-|[[#Osula Julian|Osula Julian]]||{{Time ago|20181006051148}}||0||2238||0||'''394.79'''
+|[[#Mickey's 90th Spectacular|Mickey's 90th Spectacular]]||{{Time ago|20181006143205}}||0||1609||0||'''396.49'''
 |-
-|[[#Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)|Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)]]||{{Time ago|20181005173955}}||1||1944||0||'''394.29'''
+|[[#Whitney Woerz|Whitney Woerz]]||{{Time ago|20181006020100}}||1||5320||3||'''394.26'''
 |-
-|[[#Story Discussion|Story Discussion]]||{{Time ago|20181005131458}}||1||2184||0||'''392.74'''
+|[[#Kaido (company)|Kaido (company)]]||{{Time ago|20181006103414}}||0||3225||0||'''393.3'''
 |-
-|[[#Apidura|Apidura]]||{{Time ago|20181005182554}}||1||1857||0||'''391.74'''
+|[[#Russell (rapper)|Russell (rapper)]]||{{Time ago|20181005185331}}||1||3112||0||'''390.51'''
 |-
-|[[#Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK|Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK]]||{{Time ago|20181005140635}}||1||2168||0||'''390.1'''
+|[[#Space Launcher System|Space Launcher System]]||{{Time ago|20181006020600}}||1||5416||2||'''378.92'''
 |-
-|[[#Bajgain|Bajgain]]||{{Time ago|20181006124338}}||0||1118||0||'''386.87'''
+|[[#Karl Ducks|Karl Ducks]]||{{Time ago|20181006163141}}||0||2301||0||'''375.43'''
 |-
-|[[#Dillon International|Dillon International]]||{{Time ago|20181006020800}}||1||3493||2||'''383.73'''
+|[[#Nishu Jha |Nishu Jha (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20181006214100}}||0||1268||0||'''375.07'''
 |-
-|[[#Mickey's 90th Spectacular|Mickey's 90th Spectacular]]||{{Time ago|20181006143205}}||0||1609||0||'''381.73'''
+|[[#Lord Lord Lord|Lord Lord Lord]]||{{Time ago|20181006224615}}||0||1564||0||'''371.74'''
 |-
-|[[#Whitney Woerz|Whitney Woerz]]||{{Time ago|20181006020100}}||1||5320||3||'''379.51'''
+|[[#Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)|Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)]]||{{Time ago|20181006224450}}||0||1632||0||'''371.72'''
 |}
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICS Bégué}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomer Aviram}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portfolio.hu}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterflame}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Patel (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVDVideoSoft (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racci Shay (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portfolio.hu}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad Boy Loko}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ingram}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edris Armaghani}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn David Thompson}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Wilson (filmmaker)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sallam SK}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordhair}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osula Julian}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Story Discussion}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apidura}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajgain}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon International}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey's 90th Spectacular}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Woerz}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaido (company)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell (rapper)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Launcher System}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Ducks}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishu Jha (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Lord Lord}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)}}