User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

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 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Shine Horovits	6 years ago	1	1997	0	4268.22
Baltika No. 0	6 years ago	1	1917	0	3919.24
Denis Aksenov (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	1	2822	0	3904.73
Aleksandr Smetanov	6 years ago	4	3748	0	3704.36
Filiz Odabas-Geldiay	6 years ago	1	2685	1	451.11
Bajgain	6 years ago	0	1843	1	444.24
Hash BioTech Labs	6 years ago	0	1675	0	415.66
Edris Armaghani	6 years ago	0	3089	2	414.3
Gujadhur	6 years ago	0	994	0	400.2
Madhussneha Upadhyay	6 years ago	1	4856	2	376.45
Srishti Publishers	6 years ago	0	2221	1	375.04
School Spirit (song)	6 years ago	0	3232	1	374.97
Lord Lord Lord	6 years ago	0	2296	1	374.8
Looking for Trouble (song)	6 years ago	0	2479	1	374.79
Nirudyoga Natulu	6 years ago	2	3083	1	372.98
Peepal Farm	6 years ago	2	6370	2	367.74
Bill Goodwyn	6 years ago	2	7003	2	367.65
Mickey's 90th Spectacular	6 years ago	1	2942	1	367.01
Fighting Club G-EGGS (2nd nomination)	6 years ago	1	2364	0	366.26
AUFS	6 years ago	1	3115	0	363.13
Kaido (company)	6 years ago	1	4251	1	357.07
Qalat (Baloch tribe)	6 years ago	0	1550	0	355.57
Story Discussion	6 years ago	1	3074	1	348.99
Grow Up (film)	6 years ago	0	1908	0	341.71
The Joy (song)	6 years ago	0	2536	1	341.01

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 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Shine Horovits

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

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

Designer that does designing jobs, as designers do. Works are on the kitsch side and do not appear exceptional enough. The single exhibition was in foyer of a theatre. Hebrew page was deleted due to lack of notability dindia (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Dindia: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:BASIC/WP:GNG have not been found. Sam Sailor 08:04, 16 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 Baltika Breweries#Baltika. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Baltika No. 0

Baltika No. 0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Brand does not meet significance criteria. References in the article are not authoritative.--RTY9099 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --RTY9099 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Baltika Breweries#Baltika. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:PRODUCT to Baltika Breweries#Baltika as a categorized {{R from product name}} and {{R to section}}. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. Sam Sailor 21:24, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Denis Aksenov

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Denis Aksenov
• Articles for deletion/Denis Aksenov (2nd nomination)

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

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

Although additional sources have been added since the last afd, none seem to have any value as references or suggest any real notability to meet. Denis Aksenov been low post and does not comply with policy relevance. --RTY9099 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Moscow is (a) a global city whose city councillors are considered notable enough to pass NPOL #2, and (b) a standalone federal city of Russia which is effectively a "state" or "province" in its own right, thus its city councillors actually bump up from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 as first-order divisional legislators. The first discussion is not relevant, as it took place before he was elected to the Moscow City Duma, when being chairman of the youth chamber was still the only notability claim he had at that time — but while this does need some referencing improvement, the base notability claim he has now is a hard "article must be allowed to exist" pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearcat. Moscow city Duma is equivalent to Rhode Island legislature. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOL is met. Article could do with copy-editing. Sam Sailor 07:13, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 02:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Aleksandr Smetanov

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

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

WP:POLITICIAN? --RTY9099 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Likely keep A member of the Moscow City Duma, a body in which we generally keep local officials (and we must recognize that the Moscow Duma is also a regional parliament) (per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing appears sufficient for a local official. --Enos733 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Moscow is (a) a global city whose city councillors are considered notable enough to pass NPOL #2, and (b) a standalone federal city of Russia which is effectively a "state" or "province" in its own right (which is why its city government is a Duma and not just a city council), thus its city councillors actually bump up from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 as first-order divisional legislators. This does need a bit of copyediting, but it's already got considerably more and better sources than we usually see in articles about city councillors, so even if Moscow didn't get its city councillors over NPOL, #2 would still be in play because of the depth and range of sources anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Moscow is one of the biggest cities in the world, so its city councillors are generally notable, plus the city Duma is comparable to a state senate, whose members are almost always notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPOL, though cleanup is needed. As a side note, while it reads as if this article was written by a Russian speaker, there doesn't seem to be an article on ruwiki; it's listed on ru:Проект:Москва/Список_депутатов_МГД_6_созыва as a possible project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Elected member of the governing body of one of the biggest cities in the world. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Filiz Odabas-Geldiay

Filiz Odabas-Geldiay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources in searches - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bajgain

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

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

fails WP:GNG Darsana.vinod (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - seems legit. but needs re-write, expansion, sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:18, 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hash BioTech Labs

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

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

Four years after the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikrant Sandal, I am still not seeing much about this company using Google. It looked like an attempt at using Wikipedia for PR way back then and, although the article really hasn't changed much since, it still doesn't seem to be actually notable. Sitush (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Article can always be restarted fresh when, or if, the company gets more notability via the proper sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete No indications of notability that meet the criteria, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because of lack of reliable sources to prove the notability, as even after years of the companies establishment the sources to prove its authenticity and popularity is very less.Vinodbasker (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, seems to be an attempt at promotion GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Did not find any signs to pass notability as of now. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see the 2013 Indian Express article describing their farm as sufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability, and searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 16:37, 25 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

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

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

Fails 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 22:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Gujadhur

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

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

nn vanity piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that a genuinely good and properly referenced article could be written about this family, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's willing to put in enough work to make the article good and properly referenced — but this, as written, is semi-advertorialized and poorly referenced fluff. Two of its three footnotes are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, and the third is a book which glancingly namechecks the family's existence in a quote from a person who married into it — so even the one acceptable reliable source is still not substantive or independent enough to singlehandedly WP:GNG this topic all by itself as the only non-garbage source in play. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 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 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Madhussneha Upadhyay

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

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

No strong indication of notability. The article claims that she's an actress, model, comedian and dancer, yet provides nothing to support acting, modeling, or comedy. According to the article she appeared in one song (as a dancer? An actor? An actordancer?) in the 2015 Indian Telugu-language film Baahubali: The Beginning. Zero Google News hits for Madhussneha Upadhyay, but there are some hits for Sneha Upadhyay and Madhu Sneha. I don't see any that suggest we're meeting the significant coverage or independent requirements of the WP:GNG. This is an interview. There is some mention of her here, but it's basically press-release-style content. This short article says that she's got a lot of buzz, but hasn't done much in Tollywood (Telugu cinema)--so why are we focusing on her? WP:TOOSOON. This has the feel of a vanity/paid article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently she is only known for a part in a video. Despite the sources given (she must have a good publicist), I can't see how that would qualify her under WP:NACTOR without multiple significant roles. While it is possible that she may qualify in the future she doesn't qualify for now. Hzh (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 13:13, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Srishti Publishers

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

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

Fails as per WP:NCORP. Notability would not be inherited by mentioning subjects with Wikipedia articles. Dial911 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep: If a publisher publishes multiple best-selling works[1][2][3], then that's really not inherited notability, but a function of the core activity of that business, and ORGSIG applies. Visible online in-depth coverage is woeful (are there RS Indian publishing trade press sources?), but it's at minimum NOTEWORTHY as the most prolific publisher of low-end books[4] which is credited as having been primarily responsible for launching the Indian mass-market fiction boom.[5][6] (yes, they're both interviews, but Hachette is independent of Srishti, and questions asked in an interview in an RS can be treated as factual). Since its inclusion is a necessary part of the modern history of book publishing in India, it should at most be encapsulated and redirected there, but if that's to be done it probably requires a more comprehensive/balanced expansion of that target. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The new and improved CORP policy has way too high standards. This publishing house is nowhere near it. Wikipedia needs reliable sources for any company to have its standalone article. Mere publishing bestselling books doesn’t grant it an entry to the encyclopedia. Those bestselling books shall have an article here not the publishing house. Having an article just because it produced some bestselling books is a perfect example of inherited notability. Dial911 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:57, 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 The College Dropout. czar 19:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

School Spirit (song)

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

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Mostly comprised of gratuitous quotes and infoboxes/sections designated for its skits. Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Content can incorporated into The College Dropout article, where the song is barely mentioned." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:24, 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)

• Merge into The College Dropout. The cited reviews only mention the song in the context of the album. The "Censorship" section would be a good addition to the article for The College Dropout. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The nomination rationale seems to be asking for a merge, not deletion, so I would suggest procedural keep so merger can be discussed in a proper forum. I have not checked the sources so I am neutral between keep and merge. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to The College Dropout (2004), since there is some content of interest but nothing to indicate notability independant of album.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 18 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

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

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

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, Kpgjhpjm 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 Friday Night Lights (mixtape). Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking for Trouble (song)

Looking for Trouble (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into the Friday Night Lights mixtape article." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 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 Friday Night Lights (mixtape), which already describes this track in detail. — Newslinger talk 09:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC
• Comment - nomination rationale seems to be looking for a merge, not deletion, so I would suggest a procedural keep so the merger can be discussed in a proper forum. I have not checked the sources and so am neutral. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Friday Night Lights (mixtape). Fails WP:NSONG. Whether to merge and what to merge can be discussed at the mixtape article. wumbolo ^^^ 07:42, 23 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 speedy deleted per G5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Nirudyoga Natulu

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

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

Non-notable web series. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSERIES and WP:WEB due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flooded with them hundreds 13:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I've provided the article with enough relaiable sources and third-party sources. Mind Sweepr12 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

All your references except probably the Telangana Today reference are non notable. You can look for more references from regional language sources if available. Youtube links and wordpress sites don't impart any notability per se. Jupitus Smart 17:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:TVSERIES. Only coverage is trivial. Most of the links are primary. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 15:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Peepal Farm

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

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

This is a single demonstration project in one village. Essentially no reliable sources besides their PR. Clear COI editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a number of the sources given under External Links could just be ported up as sources, producing suffcient coverage. These aren't all of the best quality, but at least the ones from Catchnews [7] and from IndiaToday [8] are solid news articles from reputable outlets. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG . This Animal welfare NGO sends animals for adoption internationally and has received significant coverage in reliable and Mainstream media in India such as India Today The Tribune (Chandigarh) Dainik Bhaskar which are sufficient for notability. Other than that it has mentions in Times of India This German website and planetcustodian --DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

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 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bill Goodwyn

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

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

Entirely promotional . Itried to clean it, but there would be nothing left after removing the puffery and the minor awards. Every references is either an interview where he says what ever he wishes to say, or a mere notice. Most of the article was written by an ip editor geolocated to his company. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Userfy. Normally, I would vote keep based on sources such as these: [9], [10], [11]. But having just read DGG's comments here (permalink), I sense the concern is the WP:PROMO rather than sources, and I see that as a good reason to take this article off-line. I also notice in articles like these the secondary sources probably got a press release and used that as the basis for their articles, so the reporting is not entirely unbiased. At the same time, the fact that the secondary sources chose to cover him and/or the org he is with suggests notability. I'm open to reconsidering based on what others have to say about this and any other prominent secondary sources I might have missed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Goodwyn is a notable executive in his industry as noted by the types and quantity of secondary sources covering him. Trimmed down more WP:PROMO material. Trimmed down WP:PROMO copy in introduction. Bebenitwit (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

1)regardless of notability this is a promotional Cv and should be deleted on that ground-perhaps I should have used G11. The "trimmed down promotional materials" still has the article beginning: "with over 30 years of experience in building and leading high-performance organizations that disrupt existing markets and create long-cycle stakeholder and shareholder value."

2)that secondary sources "choose" to cover a person is a tribute to their PR advisors, not an indication of anything notable about themselves. As one of the declared PR people at WP told me some years ago, this is the key role of the profession. Editors need stories. They take what is at hand. The PR people make sure their client's puffery is at hand. As mentioned above, the simialrity of the accounts in the various sources is clear evidence of this.

3)Looking at the claims made in the article. The second section at most shown "may be notable some day" -- the awards are minor. or for "next generation" (an euphemism just as much as the notorious "young leaders"--it's equivalent is the junior varsity. The entire third section is membership on various philanthropic boards. One attains this status by giving them money. Being chairman of the board for a major national philanthropy is perhaps notable, being member of a board of a local foundation is not. Even for the one major institution represented, his role is third-rate.: He is not a member of the UNC board, he's a member of " UNC Chapel Hill Chancellors Philanthropic Council"--the name makes it clear that its purely a fund-raising group. A DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry. WP:PRIMARY sources are generally no good. Please read through WP:RS to learn what are good sources on Wikipedia. Something like this is no good, and is little more than original research. Many of the articles content based on such sources would have to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Promotional article about a non-notable individual. Please note that user Bebenitwit, an account just established for disputing this nomination, is likely a sock of the article creator, user Dancing52734, and both are likely undisclosed CoI editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Clearly a piece written by UPE to promote the subject. Fails WP:PROMO based on the puffery and WP:GNG based on the almost entirely primary sources and non-notable awards. The possible socking at this AfD is also concerning. Waggie (talk) 03:39, 21 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

Mickey's 90th Spectacular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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 delete. Sandstein 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fighting Club G-EGGS

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Fighting Club G-EGGS
• Articles for deletion/Fighting Club G-EGGS (2nd nomination)

Fighting Club G-EGGS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable stable with mostly WP:ROUTINE results sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Can't find anything to meets WP:GNG for this short lived stable. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:57, 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 keep. No support for deletion. Merge proposals can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

AUFS

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

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

Non notable subject that has no significant coverage so it fails easily WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

* RedirectArticle needs to revert back to oldid=267561459 or become a DAB. May add interim hatnote. Even if surviving does not own the AUFS space and would require rename Article would need improvement to survive.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Per consensus - But if consensus is a keep the article should be renamed to Absorbance Units Full Scale or Absorbance units full scale and AUFS should be converted from a redirect to a dab. Should this be a keep I will WP:BOLDly that after the keep unless there is objection now in which case I would likely go to WP:REQMOVE. See also Article title format as why the current (ambiguous) title is unsuitable. If not a keep then should revert to oldid=267561459 (a redirect) or a DAB. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the information, but I have no problem with a merge somewhere else, perhaps High-performance liquid chromatography. Or Absorbance which is where Absorbance Units redirects. It's a widely used term of art appearing in numerous textbooks, so should go somewhere on Wikipedia. This page is a much better source than the forum post currently in our article, and has a rather better explanation than our article. SpinningSpark 16:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've improved the article, if a 'keeper' doesnt feel its an improvement your welcome to the rollback. I am not doing a rescue, but hopefully the cites are useful ... more would be needed to survive. The body would need to be expanded out and the content would need to match the cites for article survival. If attempting a merge avoidance of any undue weight or disruption to the target is critically important. I do note that this seems to be one of many acronyms in this area and the article would need to indicate why this is different. My main concern is AUFs is back to a redirect or a dab. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)*

• KEEP important definition for chemistry students Tiptopper (talk) 02:01, 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. czar 19:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Kaido (company)

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

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

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. Tone 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Qalat (Baloch tribe)

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

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

I think this was a mistake made in the move here in 2009. The information moved relates to the Khan of Kalat but nowhere does it refer to the tribe as Qalat (or any other spelling). I can find sources about the Khan and the place but nothing other than mirrors regarding a tribe that uses the name. The names of tribes and places in the region do sometimes coincide but this doesn't appear to be one of those occasions. Sitush (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Qalat is a place not a tribe.Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 21 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

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

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

Non-notable 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 soft delete as equivalent to expired WP:PROD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Grow Up (film)

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

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

Fails WP:NMOVIE. Coverage is mostly from user-generated IMDb or sourced directly to the film or trailer. Nothing usable found in WP:BEFORE. TeraTIX 12:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 12:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 12:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:39, 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 Watch the Throne. While there are concerns with misusing AfD for merger proposals, nobody actually proposes to keep this article on its merits, and the nomination contains a valid argument for deletion, i.e., lack of notability. Sandstein 20:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Joy (song)

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

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 64.26.97.61 (talk). Rationale was: "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into the Watch the Throne album article." Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Another merge rationale in the nomination. Shouldn't be at AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 12:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Merge into Watch the Throne. The lawsuit is a significant addition to the album article, but the remainder would be undue weight. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The nomination rationale seems to be asking for a merge, not deletion, so I would suggest procedural keep so merger can be discussed in a proper forum. I have not checked the sources so I am neutral between keep and merge.Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 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.