Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:08, 30 May 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 May	24 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools. The fundamental agreement is that the subject is not notable enough for a standalone article, as determined by Wikipedia guidelines. There were a few suggestions to delete the article before redirecting, but as Kudpung mentioned, that's not standard practice, and no reason has been provided for why we should deviate from standard practice in this case. Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Joseph's High School, Hyderabad

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

Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGO. It's fine as a line within a section in Hyderabad until notability standards can be met. South Nashua (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hyderabad article is too high-level for a list of high schools; Kukatpally might be a place to put info if there are sources that aren't sufficient for GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools. bd2412 T 16:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Yep, as above, to Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its locality or Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools, noting that we do not delete the page, @Deathlibrarian, BD2412, and South Nashua:. We blank it and add the Redirect template and the {{R from school}} template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with a redirect. South Nashua (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this is not a valid topic for a stand-alone article, so the question remained whether to delete it outright or to merge/redirect as Jclemens suggested. However, there was no consensus to do so at this time. As usual, this result does not prevent any editor from adding a mention to a suitable article and then recreating this page as a redirect to said article. Regards So Why 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Charlie

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

I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this sandwich. There is no indication it is notable. It is not mentioned in the main article not at List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia episodes. I can not find a place to redirect this to either. ~ GB fan 23:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering. [1] puts it in with several obviously notable food related, comedy-originated fictional elements e.g. the Soup Nazi. [2] mentions it in passing. Notability is equivocal, although there are certainly plenty of trivial references to it. It would be reasonable to merge somewhere, maybe to the main "It's Always Sunny..." article, as there seem to be other foods that might make a section, or even a spinout article. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/soft delete. Fails GNG. At best soft delete through redirect to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia per Jclemens above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia as that appears to be an appropriate target for this. I am not certain about the value of a merge, but I would not be opposed to that either if the consensus points in that direction. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we redirect this without merging any content then people will end up at an article that does not discuss Grilled Charlie or even mention it. It would be better to be a red link than to go somewhere without any information. ~ GB fan 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, and I partially agree with you. Grilled Charlie probably should be mentioned in a short sentence in the article for the reasons you mention. However, I do not believe it should be shown as a red link as that would encourage someone to remake the article, since if this AfD reaches a consensus to merge, then the article would not have passed the notability standards and should not be recreated (unless for some reason, this subject receives more attention in the future). While reading WP:RED, red links are defined as "useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" and I am not certain if the red link would be appropriate in this context. Otherwise, I agree with you, and I have struck out my redirect vote to just have merge. Thank you again for your response, and I apologize for my super lengthy response lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is in-universe nonsense. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Power~enwiki that this is in-universe nonsense, but more important is that it has no coverage, failing WP:GNG. No redirect is indicated, for one because it is an orphan article, and two because its role in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is miniscule, not even worth mentioning. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viking (knjiga)

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

The article is referring to Odinn's Child, by Tim Severin. Besides being a foreign language article, it also fails WP:GNG. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in English, lacking references, fails WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No idea what the author typed there, so i couldnt find any refs. I am not sure, but I think "en" of enwiki stands for English. Maybe i am wrong. @Stikkyy: By Odinn, do you mean the norse god, and Thor's father? Then why does Tim have a different family name? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion regarding article content and potential improvements can continue on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of military disasters

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

Article with a faulty premise: a disaster, according to m-w.com, is a "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life". A war or a battle is not a natural catastrophe, but a planned event. In addition, the list strikes me as a POV creation, as one side's "disaster" is another side's "brilliant success".

The article has been tagged as OR since Aug 2016 and has not been improved since, or since the two prior AfDs for that matter. It is still almost entirely unsourced, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of books have been written about this: World's Worst Military Disasters, Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day, Roman Military Disasters: Dark Days & Lost Legions, etc. Also articles: "The greatest disasters in military history". The Burnsides and Custers of this world are not to be denied. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a POV problem, and the language seems to be in use in secondary sources - if an event is described as a "military disaster" in secondary sources, it would be suitable for inlcusion here. Since there are numerous sources for this, I don't see any problem with keeping the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I grant the nom's point regarding inclusion criteria, but also the previous keep !voters' objections that such issues can be overcome by regular editing--that is, proper sourcing and inclusion criteria can be applied without needing deletion. 'Military disaster' has plenty of RS coverage, so the list is not NN. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st point the term "Military Disaster" is the common term used for military failures in literature written about this. Secondly, there are a number of books, articles and websites that address this topic, so it would be worthy of an article. It may need more references, but there are no ground to delete it, IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no grounds for deletion. Maybe a clear list inclusion criteria, which can be addressed by WP:NOTDUP. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I do not see the sources listed as convincing. They are popular history books mostly by non-notable authors:

Chris McNab: The World's Worst Military Disasters. The author does not have a wiki article, appears to be a popular history & militaria author (other books include The FN Minimi Light Machine Gun: M249, L108A1, L110A2, and other variants, among others). Published by Rosen Publishing, which produces books for children ages through K12.
Geoffrey Regan: Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Regan is a popular history author.
Paul Chrystal: Roman Military Disasters, published by Pen & Sword. Comes from a militaria publisher & a nn author.

The list is too subjective to be encyclopedically relevant, IMO. The article on the topic of Military disaster is a redirect to this list, with the definition of "military disaster" being cited to said McNab.

The only way I see of salvaging this article is to remove anything uncited (two prior AfD is plenty of chances for improvement) and / or move it to List of events (possibly) described as military disasters in popular history books. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one wonders when we became the Academicpedia? I see no prohibition on using popular histories in WP:RS. What the nominator fails to understand is that popular histories are not automatically unreliable or poor quality - Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August is a classic, Pulitzer-winning history of the outbreak of the First World War. And yet no one need hold one's nose to crack open that piece of "popular" history. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's clearly a POV issue here. The number of "disasters" related to the British Isles in the Medieval era section should strike anyone as biased (Medieval history is certainly not limited to a tiny portion of the smallest continent). To further illustrate the POV bias, French vocabulary includes the expression un coup de Trafalgar in reference to what is considered one of the worst military disaster in France's history, the battle of Trafalgar. The list of 19th century disasters doesn't even include that battle but does include Waterloo, although French historians simply consider that this battle was won by a largely superior force (60% + more troops according to Wikipedia) against Napoleon's desperate attempt to reconquer his empire. I could of course fix the list to include Trafalgar, but this would be yet another form of POV. Such intrinsically biased lists don't belong to Wikipedia. JR Bouvier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy Lake

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

Not a proper dab page, consisting only of two partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search shows Dummy Lake, Ontario and Dummy Lake, Manitoba. Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Boleyn comment; disambiguation pages are navigational tools for the reader to find articles. Concerning disambiguation pages, flexibility is needed. User Boleyn mentioned there are some lakes named Dummy Lake in Canada. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a partial title match where the non-matching word is something as generic as "Big" or "Little" seems a useful title entry for a dab page. Times two. PamD 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Partial title matching aside, there is a Dummy Lake in Ontario, a Lac Dummy in Quebec, and a Dummy Lake (now renamed Wargatie Lake) in Manitoba. I'm working on a stub for at least the Manitoba one; others potentially to follow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Two English and one French lakes are enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: per nomination being withdrawn with !voting at 100% keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, snowball. --Lockley (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel D'Souza

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

This appears to be partly a hoax or patent nonsense about a real person, and an effort to squeeze in just enough fact to avoid speedy deletion. There is no indication that the real Noel D'Souza, as mayor of a small town, is notable, but this is blather. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I dispute your assumption that the City of Randwick is a "small town", D'Souza as a subject does not even come close to satisfying notability. This 'page' however (using that term lightly), is borderline vandalism.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd also dispute the characterization of Randwick as a small town — a population of 145K is more than enough that a mayor would be considered notable if he or she were properly sourced, because the inclusion bar for mayors is nowhere near as restrictive as the one for city councillors is. But I do agree with the nominator's characterization of the article's content — apart from the statement that he exists, all that's here is his purported involvement in a human rights campaign to prevent discrimination on the basis of pupil size. But that kind of discrimination isn't a thing in the first place — for one thing, pupils routinely dilate or contract in response to lighting conditions, and apart from a couple of very rare medical conditions no human being has significantly different-sized pupils than any other. So that's absolutely a pile of bullshit. And the sole source present here is the search results for his name on a search engine, which mostly brings up primary sources. So no prejudice against recreation if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version is a clear candidate for the WP:TNT treatment regardless of his notability or lack thereof — even if somebody were willing and able to tackle cleaning it up right away, we'd still have to REVDEL the current content out of the visible edit history. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is probably quite literally a joke inside of a hoax. Though eventualism shouldn't be applied to BLPs, the fact that I tagged/categorized the article probably wouldn't hurt if there's any hope for it at all (and I don't think there is at the moment). I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay. At 145,000 people, Randwick is a medium-sized city. Mayors of medium-sized cities often meet general notability. This doesn't say anything notable about him, except for some bad jokes. (At least I think that they are bad jokes, when on the Internet no one can see you smile.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.lot parking

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

I'm not entirely convinced by the sources that the company is notable. Nearly all are primary, and I couldn't find any sources on Google. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. The entire article is clearly marketing and puffery. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- entirely promotional with 0 encyclopediacally relevant content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Shūichi

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see any reason why he's notable, in the article or via Google, but I don't read Japanese; if deleted could replace by a redirect to Shuichi Abe (I don't see any evidence that they are related). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created in 2013. Is a mess (e.g. YYYYs and DD.MM.YYs all over the place) - and hasn't really improved since it was created (and the original author seems to have left wiki shortly after creation). no sources (sorry - a Czech forum post with the same text and a dead website). Google doesn't find any additional sources. He might meeting SOLDIER (arguable) for his airfield group command (hard for me to assess) - but given the state of the article and sourcing - it should be deleted.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - looking for each of the commands listed- 8th Air District, Baicheng Air District, 30th Area Air Command, 3rd Airfield Group - I can't find any refence that supports these existed. (Baicheng is a city in the environs of Manchukuo (which would be under the 2nd air army) - but other than that, I simply don't see any references to any of these commands. I think this entry is probably a hoax (and if not - it is un-sourced).Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article probably should have been created in draft space and died there.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article ultimately seems to be based on this (archived from the original) and has as its sole source "上法快男監修,外山操編『陸海軍将官人事総覧』陸軍篇（芙蓉書房、昭和56年）（327頁)". The Japanese Wikipedia on the ja:第4飛行師団 seems well sourced, and shows him with the same last assignment. Otherwise, I can't find anything in Japanese on the net. I doubt that this is a hoax, but unless there is a lot in print sources, I also think it's clear that he does not pass WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree the article is a mess and also does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for articles on soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree article is a mess. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Fuzheado | Talk 02:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing

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

I don't consider this article notable according to WP:NOTE and WP:NNEWS. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance. The important condolences are mentioned in 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Creating a list over countries who condemn terrorism is just not relevant. It's not like we in years will search for which countries condemned the attack in Manchester 2017. We should hold it as we did under all the other attacks: a general political sentence about how the world condemns terrorism and only mentioning outstanding reactions - which perfectly fits under the section reactions in the event article. We don't need a new article about condolences. Rævhuld (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing[reply]

Seriously? And you didn't even bother making a page before doing your drive-by.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarysa (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I followed WP:HOWTODELETE. As you can read there, I first have to tag the page, then press the link that occurs on the saved article and I then have to fill out the formula on two pages. That takes 5 minutes. A little more patience next time, please.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on this - WP:HOWTODELETE is nothing more than a guide, not an official policy. Jayden (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good tip for future reference might be to work with two tabs. Have the article you want to nominate for deletion open in both tabs, add the afd to both, then press the preview button on both. You should see a preview of what the page looks like, so you can use one of the tabs to progress to the afd page, then save both together once you're finished. Might avoid further drama. Just a thought. This is Paul (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)And you could've just as easily created this page using Twinkle. That takes at most 10 seconds to do everything (including creating this page and editing the page up for AfD), plus the time it takes to write out your AfD argument. — Gestrid (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great tips. But please consider writing it into the guide. That is the thing people follow. If the guide is wrong, new user like me are doing it wrong. And to be fair: that is not really our fault. And it might be that the guide is not living up to Wikipedia policy, but then again, change the guideline. But thank you for the tips. I will use it in the future. Especially Twinkle was a great tip <3--Rævhuld (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Has precedent. -- sarysa (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I also move for Speedy close, for reasons given by User:Power~enwiki. -- sarysa (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of clarity, aside from precedent, it is needed to not clutter the main article. At the time of the split, the two articles were around 20k each, now they're over 30k each and rising. It's also useful as it records the subtle variations in international reactions, such as Iran's comparison with a domestic incident. -- sarysa (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are those subtle variations discussed in reliable sources? If not doing so here would be WP:OR. If there is no discussion or other prose about the quotes then why are you adding them here not Wikiquote? Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, every single one has a source. At least one Wikipedian is double-checking sources. (I constructed most of the country list myself from an old list that merely listed countries and references) As for why not Wikiquote, I suppose the #1 reason would be that it's a mix of quoting and paraphrasing, like the Orlando reaction article. Aside from that, it would be helpful for you to describe how Wikiquote could improve the article. -- sarysa (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above. You couldn't even be bothered to make a page explaining your reason for the AfD? Jayden (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this be speedy closed? Jayden (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As stated above, there are numerous other similar pages. No clear reason why this one should be deleted. Kenyan105 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We do have precedence for this kind of thing, and it will no doubt grow into being more than how the nominator envisages it. This is Paul (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Gestrid (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP removing it. Its good to see the reactions from around the world which can keep it historically accurate and is a good thing to keep for future use. If you want to remove the page, move all the reactions to the main page Winsocker (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a repository of quotes from around the world - that's the purpose of Wikiquote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this could be moved into 2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing, but there's no possible remedy from the AfD process. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several other pages like this one, so there is no need to delete. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a small notice about WP:OTHERSTUFF existing. Also keep in mind WP:AFDFORMAT when discussing if that applies. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point, and I'll admit to being very dismissive in my argument. It originally seemed to be a drive-by tag, which is why. Will clarify my arguments. -- sarysa (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; just saw everyone following suite and just needed clarification for better consensus in the latter. (Also another note about the view stats, there's also another clause about that, make sure to review please (no hard feelings)). :D Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Retain for now. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are three parts to this article, a WP:QUOTEFARM that belongs on Wikiquote if anywhere, a collection of trivia and responses from non-notable people and organisations, a duplicates of what is in the main article. There is nothing here that needs an article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' These "reactions to" pages are all unencyclopedic cruft containing canned statements in a WP:QUOTEFARM method that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. The attack is notable. The reactions to it from governments and terrorist organizations is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:QUOTEFARM, aside from being only a guideline rather than a rule, is moot as virtually everything here is paraphrased to begin with. WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually recommends article splits (as had been done) but I'd also like to add that collating the reactions of nations is inherently dangerous. You risk misrepresenting a nation's reaction by trying to fit them into into "close enough" categories. World leaders also have a far lower threshold for notability than the examples on that page. As for WP:NOTNEWS, people seem to love to shoehorn things that don't belong. The reactions have been made. They are now history. -- sarysa (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm putting the reasoning I used at the AfD for International reactions to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt here, as it is the same reason why I think it should be kept: "I don't believe this is an "indiscriminate" collection of information, per the reasoning at WP:DISCRIMINATE, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy, as there are distinctions about which quotes can be put on the page, as a tweet from a random person wouldn't be put on, but a statement from the American President would be. But if people really don't like these quotes existing on Wikipedia at all, maybe Wikiquote would be a good place for them, as opposed to removing them all together?" And then have a redirect? Seagull123 Φ 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE/KEEP per Sarysa and splitting off from the article.Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note. I have changed the "oppose" !votes to "keep" so that they can be processed by the !vote counter. WWGB (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the future, academics, researchers and other interested parties can use this page and others like it to assess trends in how various governments and public figures have reacted to a range of world events. It's not just that most reactions are negative but is is of significance how reactions are expressed. Greenshed (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely no reason to delete it. To do so would be shameful as within this article the world's human response to a heinous attack is properly documented. 86.152.144.97 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Sarysa (talk · contribs)'s argument. (121.219.250.63 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, and Close - No need to drag this out for the full 7 days. An encyclopedic fork that prevents the main article from becoming cluttered, the article is not just a handful of quotes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as per Sarysa. Autarch (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Economy

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

Business article sourced entirely to self-cites and no indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:BEFORE does not turn up any such coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written, promotional article that lacks added value to WP. gidonb (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vina Vidai Vettai Juniors (season 3)

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

Non-notable television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 07:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional Love (Tupac Shakur song)

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

The song has not appeared on a major music chart. No reliable sources are provided or appear in searches.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't found much in the way of detailed coverage, but the song's interesting backstory (a song written by Tupac Shakur for MC Hammer) coupled with some rather high level sources mentioning it briefly (ABC News, MTV News) makes me think there's probably more sourcing out there. (This was a 90s song, so it could be locked away in paper sources.) I'm actually probably leaning keep... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to comment because of the clear lack of participation in this AfD discussion. A work by Tupac is as notable in some communities as a work by Shakespeare or Picasso. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richardcavell that is not a keep rationale. This Tupac song needs extensive secondary coverage just like any other work by any other artist and it clearly fails to do so. It is briefly mentioned it articles about the artist himself but nowhere does it have standalone sources like notable Tupac songs do. Please rethink your vote with a policy-based reason in mind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Previously NAC closed as "merge to SAS Wrestling, which was a fine result, but that page was deleted two days ago for not being notable. Thus, the only reasonable outcome based on the discussion is to delete. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Tag Team Championship

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

has no notability not needed on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.66.24 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

created this from a prod added by the IP, using the IPs prod rationale. ~ GB fan 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a championship of a SAS Wrestling. Is this notable enough for its own article, not sure, but if not content should be merged into the main article and this should redirect there. That though is a discussion to have on the article talk pages not here. ~ GB fan 11:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I can't find anything covered in independent reliable sources and notability isn't inherited from SAS/RQW.LM2000 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info into the article on the SAS promotion. MPJ-DK 10:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an article for SAS Wrestling doesn't currently exist (not saying it is or isn't notable, I haven't had a chance to research it yet), so this list can't be merged there. Nikki♥311 19:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable belt. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.190.4 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info into the article on the SAS promotion.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per discussion on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 01:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wouldn't be notable even if SAS Wrestling was notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Haikyū!! with no prejudice against recreating as a stand-alone article if stand-alone notability can be proven. Regards So Why 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haruichi Furudate

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

Manga artist only known for the Haikyu series. As shown in the opening paragraph, manga artist has never attended any event, so notability independent of the series is difficult to assess. Recommend direct to Haikyu. JA Wikipedia shows some interviews but most are in the context of Haikyu. But this can be reviewed to see if that has enough for Furudate's notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haikyū!!, this looks like a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese wikipedia page seems to be developed... shame I can't read it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per WP:CREATIVE third bullet, if his work is notable (which it undoubtedly is), then he is notable. Additional content should be translated from .jp Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear there's any biographical info independent of Haikyu!! though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Deposition (law). Appropriate content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 16:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-evidence

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

Merge with deposition (law), as the article works better with the merge. As it stands, the article does not work well in a separate article. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone

My name is Mahesh and I am the creator of wikipedia page Tele-evidence. Being new to wikipedia I faced initial challenges of working with wiki (like adding links, references, pics etc) but with the help and guidance of others on wikipedia I could create a small page with some data, references and pics. I am a working professional and not very tech savvy, so can devote a very limited time to build the page further but I am doing my best and hope more people will chip in coming days as the concept expands.

However since the creation of this page, Kiteinthewind is suggesting to merge it with deposition. His/her argument is that it's one and same but is being done electronically in case of Tele-evidence.

I'll explain as to how it is different in coming days. Please bear with me. Thanks

Hospadmnpgi (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being new I might not be getting what exactly 'merger' of Tele-evidence with Deposition means. Could you please explain it. Thanks Hospadmnpgi (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Hospadmnpgi - Tele-evidence is merely a deposition by electronic means, in which the underlying fundamentals is the same as deposition. We are confusing means with end here. As for a merger, it means that relevant articles in this article will be incorporated with deposition (law), and the Tele-evidence page will be redirected to that page. This is different from a delete, in that when an article is deleted, the article, and all of its contents, are completely removed from Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Much of this article appears as if it is a vehicle to promote the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research. The use of the tele-evidence arrangements have been reported in a small geographical area, although it does look as if the use of these arrangements will expand across India. I don't think there has currently been enough done to establish notability to a point where it could stand as an article on its own. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Oppose merge with Deposition (law) -- never heard of this in my law classes. Send this to WP:AfC before it shows up again. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is generally not considered to be a sound and convincing argument. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into another article. Digital/electronic methods in civil procedure is already covered in the deposition article. It should be merged into Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if anything. If videoconferencing has little or no relation to that law, then that article should be moved to Indian civil procedure law after merging, to match other articles (see law of India.) It is a detail of deposition methods as used in Indian civil procedure. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Demie

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

Self-promotional non-notable article Amisom (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very minor role in a film, not enough to pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Lopez

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

Unremarkable local politician. It's basically the third most common name in the world, so it's hard to really say there isn't any sources, but I'm not really seeing anything.

The article doesn't even make any claims that, were they true and source-able, would establish notability, but it probably falls short of A7.

The article is vaguely promotional throughout, but probably falls short of G11. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that the article is too promotional and does not adhere to NPOV guidelines. The use of words with a promotional connotation such as "avid" seems to be

rampant and the little to no notability as well as frequent grammatical errors does not help its case. Feels like it was written by a campaign manager Wikicommandercros (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator has responded on the article's talk page. ansh 666 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Las Vegas is certainly a large enough city that its city councillors would be accepted as notable if they were written and sourced properly — but this article, as written, is essentially a campaign brochure rather than a proper encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sourcing, routine namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, and a single piece of coverage that is about him but is in a WordPress blog rather than a reliable source. This is neither the substance nor the sourcing that it takes to make a city councillor notable just for being a city councillor. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing present here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekashila Park

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

An ordinary park in a city. Nothing notable. No RS. Stub since July 2013. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite a small and non-notable park. --Lockley (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Shadab

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

Notability issues. Advert like content. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely non-notable. NPOV issues in this article as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe that this article meets the criteria for establishing notability. Together with the awards, I'm leaning towards a Weak Keep which would become Keep if one more reference can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: It is just a passing reference, and the award isnt notable either, they hold competition for like once a month. Its like during diwali, monsoon, Ramzaan, summer and so on. Then there are too many categories as well. Not a big deal if such awards are won. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran Hmmm ... I disagree that it is only a passing reference - the article talks about a book launch for the "Times Good Food Guide" which this Hotel features in, written by an independent third party, and is therefore considered a good source and a good reference for establishing notability. Also, "hotel+shadab"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&ei=2xMsWYqwL8jcgAbdhb-QBg#q="hotel+shadab"&tbm=bks consider that the Hotel is mentioned in high a number of book and tourist guides - some of which do not meet the criteria for establishing notability, but a lot of others do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: erm... It is their job to keep mentioning hotels. There are hundreds of hotels mentioned in this way, doesnt mean all of them are notable and should have a standalone article in an encyclopaedia. On a different note, are you in Ireland right now? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran If you can frame your objection with reference to a policy or guideline, I'll be better able to respond. The way it is currently phrased, it is simply your opinion. For example, are (some of) the books (shown in the search result above) in some way "sponsored" by the companies mentioned? Are lonely planet guides and books of that ilk not regarded as reliable secondary sources for some reasons? And yes, based in Ireland. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: yes, it is sort my personal opinion, but it is also the essence of wikipedia guidelines. I am not sure how to point at some particular guidelines. And no, I didnt mean it that way, i didnt mean it was paid review. My point was, it is what they do, write about hotels. So obviously, they will include many hotels. It does not necessarily make the hotels notable. Also, there are a few different hotels by the same name, like this one. The mentioned address is differen from our hotel of Medina circle, Charminar (aka Old City).

Maybe we can create a new article like "Hotels in Hyderabad", and redirect this to there. There are a few other hotels with article on wikipedia, which are stubs and might get deleted because of the notability issue. It would be a good idea to consolidate all of them in one article. I am a hibernophile. :-D —usernamekiran(talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a travel brochure. I don't see encyclopedic relevance here; such material can be just as successfully housed on the hotel's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Two of the three reasons for nominating the article for deletion can be fixed by editing and thus are not WP:DEL-REASONs. Geoff mentioned a couple of sources that address the "non-notable" !votes but the only later !vote does not really discuss those sources but mainly argues based on WP:UGLY. As such, despite the numerical majority of delete !votes, there is no consensus to delete. So Why 18:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pista House

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

Notability issues, orphan, and ad like content. All since March-April 2012. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable business, no depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article needs rewriting to tone down the promotion. But I'm finding credible mentions of locations in both India and the United States: Virgina; Hyderabad; organic haleem; California; Hyderabad again; 200 outlets; Haleem price increases - from 2013. I think these are enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as well as WP:GNG. And there are more, such as this philately book recalling 2002 when the restaurant teamed with the post office to offer delivery all over Hyderabad. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- if I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alurralde

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

This is a non-notable surname per WP:APONOTE as there are not at least two notable people with the name. It doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG either. The cited reference is a sketch of a coat of arms, which does nothing to establish notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nortek

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

I found no notability per WP:CORP. The company that it is a subsidiary of doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. No indication of any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose only sources are the firm's own Wayback-ed defunct website. Searches find sources on similarly-named firms in other fields, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that this peripheral firm was ever notable. AllyD (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources. I mean it's hard to even say if the company is still active. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 02:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent catastrophism

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

WP:FRINGE of WP:FRINGE. This is an off-shoot of Velikovskian ideas that was described as a rehabilitation by certain critics (C. Leroy Ellenberger among them). However, there isn't any acknowledgment in reliable sources that this idea as a research line actually exists. It's simply a collection of people who were somewhat sympathetic to certain Velikovskian claims who later moved towards more prosaic proposals. As such, this article is basically serving as a WP:POV Fork of Immanuel Velikovsky and/or geochronology, seems to be a soapbox for the beliefs that it represents a "coherent" line of study, and is also painfully WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and non-notable. jps (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:This is absolutely not an off-shoot of Velikovskian ideas. It has nothing to do with Velikovsky. To suggest it is, is seriously misleading and ignorant of the scientific literature. Honestly! if you use a scientific search engine, such as Web of Knowledge (the standard one that most scientists use) you will find it difficult to find any criticism at all of coherent catastrophism in the last 20 years. Go ahead, try. It is accepted in the astronomical cannon. Ellenberger, whoever he is, has not been mentioned in a generation.

What IS debated, and this is really the only debate, is whether the latest period of coherent catastrophism caused by the Taurid meteor shower has had any obvious effect on Earth's history, and especially the development of human culture over the last 20 thousand years or so. Of course, this is matter of debate, and this is where the action is. The principle of coherent catastrophism itself is physically sound. That is, when a giant comet enters the inner solar system such that its orbit, or the orbits of its debris, intersects earth's orbit at regular intervals, Earth is exposed to enhanced risk during this period. Common sense - no scientist would argue with this.

The fact the WIki editors are STILL peddling these old-fashioned ideas about Velikovsky just shows how out of touch with modern developments they are. One particular editor, Doug, clearly has a personal bias on this issue. Doug, go and read the scientific literature, and get yourself up to date. As things stand, Wiki is looking tired and dusty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps this will help you. First look here at Centaur (minor planet) . Next look here at comets, especially the Jupiter family of short period comets. Next look here at orbital decay. Now look at meteor showers. Then look at the Taurids, and the beta Taurids, and comet Encke, and finally the Tunguska event. You see, Wikipedia already has the underlying information that leads to the conclusion that 'coherent catastrophism' is a real phenomenon. And Velikovsky wasn't mentioned once - just up-to-date astronomy. The only debate is whether the Taurids have caused Earth any problems. I think a Wiki page that collects all this information together would be helpful for the general public. Not fringe.

What you seem to have missed is that the coining of the neologism seems to have been done in the context of the aftermath of the mess Velikovsky wrought on public discourse surrounding science. "Catastrophism" as an idea contrasted with uniformitarianism in the nineteenth century before Charles Lyell forced the issue as to why uniformitarianism made sense. Then, in 1980, the Alvarez hypothesis was posited and developed to such an extent to provoke new interest in cataclysms, but no one is claiming that this is "coherent catastrophism". Rather, the term is associated entirely with neo-Velikoskians for better or worse (and if you doubt that Clube and Napier were so involved with Velikovskian fantasies, just do a little digging into their publication record). Now, it's obvious that trying to combine the K-T boundary event with the subject of this article would be outright original research ~~since, as far as I know, I'm the first person to point out the contradiction here in this discussion~~David Morrison actually makes this point here. But it just underscores the point that "coherent catastrophism" as an idea is simply a fringe offshoot of a fringe proposal. When similar ideas are arrived at from different lines of research, they aren't called "coherent catastrophism". That is the way the world is, and Wikipedia cannot fix the situation. We're way out in the weeds here and so should not be pushing the envelope. If "coherent catastrophism" is to become a thing, we need some third-party reliable sources that can explain how it as an idea is a thing. jps (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was on the fence. This is clearly a "niche" theory, but possibly not actually fringe. There is some published research, by more than one author, and some references to that research, but it is pretty much a phrase that was used a bit in the 1980s and things have now moved on. However MystifiedCitizen has convinced me that it is too fringe for Wikipedia. Rants, paranoid accusations, and synthesis are never signs of a good article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::Not fringe. Mainstream astronomy. Not paranoia, or synthesis, or the work of a single author. I am simply exasperated that senior editors here can be so far out of date. This concerns me as a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep. At the moment, I do not see any compelling reason for deletion. Admittedly, I am not very "in the know" about what critical appraisals have been raised against the subject of the article. But I think the solution is to include critical commentary in the article, rather than refactor it into Velikovsky. There are apparently important differences with Velikovsky's brand of woo. For one thing, the "more prosaic" claims of coherent catastrophism seem to be based (to my uninitiated reading) on actual physics and astronomy, rather than wishful thinking. That is, admittedly, not a good reason for believing the theory, but it does seem like redirecting it to a thoroughly discredited theory is not very neutral. I feel like readers deserve to be told why this theory is not astronomically plausible, assuming this can be done within the usual WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE standards. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but what is your source demonstrating what the "theory" in question is? As far as I can tell, this is just a collection of "ideas that are more plausible than much of the Velikovskian nonsense" (which is what makes it "coherent"). That isn't a "theory" as much as it "glints spotted in the muck while panning for gold". How does one write an article on a claimed research program which nobody has summarized as a research program? What sources can we possibly base this article on that aren't naked WP:SYNTH? jps (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You already referred to an independent source that lumps the subject in with Velikovsky. Are there other such critical fringe sources? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I wouldn't say it is a "independent source" so much as it is an "critical opinion" offered by someone. Much the same way as if someone who criticized Flat Earthers called Lord Steven Christ a "concave Earther". Note that we don't have a concave Earth article on Wikipdia. jps (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. If there really aren't any independent sources, then the appropriate action is deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, this seems pretty convincing to me. Changed to weak delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doesn't seem to be fringe. I just ran a check on this Google Scholar, 96 hits. RS Articles seem to be using the term in a serious manner. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96 hits, but every last one to Clube, Napier, and Duncan Steele. Not a legitimate research program. jps (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Argument for Keep so it could be appropriately unpacked and countered within the article. This is a good few critical paragraphs that puts across this throughline of sensationalism, The Cosmic Serpent and The Cosmic Winter, talking about angels and the English Civil War, and the parallels to Dr. V. It's less like a scientific theory and more like a series of mental images. Are they setting out to show it happened historically? Do they want a prevention program? I don't see the relationship to proof -- having any or getting any -- and in the end it just doesn't smell right. --Lockley (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the website which seals the deal that this is fringe of fringe being followed by C. Leroy Ellenberger: [3]. Writing a WP:NPOV piece on such an obscure offshoot is simply not possible. Fails WP:NFRINGE! jps (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marley Brant

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

Procedural nomination only. I declined this as a prod because it has previously been through AFD. Since the originally deleted article was completely unreferenced and this one actually has some sort of referencing, and is somewhat less promotional, I didn't feel I could delete it as a CSD G4 either. SpinningSpark 17:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, didn't see the prior AfD. The article originally had a claim that she was a grammy nominee, but that claim was sourced by a non-rs. Can't find any indication she was nominated. There are a couple of nice sources, but they both deal with a single one of her books, and the articles are more about the book than the author (Freebirds...). Absent that, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she has a number of books under her belt, but there are scant references for her here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this user is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. SpinningSpark 15:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be agreement that the (now much-expanded) content about this museum item should be kept, but it's not yet clear whether it should be merged somewhere or otherwise made part of a broader article. These discussions can continue outside of this AfD. Sandstein 09:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

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

No evidence that this individual object is notable - sources provided are from the museum which holds it. Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world. PROD was contested by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museum. PamD 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i agree we need a high bar for notibility on costume items in museums, but I believe this item may qualify if the article is expanded. Can you give me a few days to collect some research? - PKM (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion normally lasts at least a week. I can see the argument that a museum object can be notable in the same way as an individual painting in a gallery - but as you say there needs to be quite a high bar so that we don't get every museum catalogue dumped into the encyclopedia. Good luck in finding some independent sources to support this garment's notability. PamD 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article significantly, and added references and many wikilinks. Let me know how you feel about these changes. -PKM (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I de-PROD'ed to allow a chance for discussion and further development, which seems to me appropriate. I don't think that we should have articles on every object in a museum collection, but this one does have a fair amount of scholarly WP:RS published on it, way beyond an entry in a museum catalogue. I'm not sure of what the answer ultimately should be, but I do think it's worth considering it as an art object, either by itself, or as part of a slightly broader cultural topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a significant amount of reliable source commentary about this particular caftan as evidenced by the improvements to the article and supporting references. Nice job. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but with concerns about implications - see comment) - Hmmm. Keep does set a pretty dangerous precedent, for exactly the concerns I had with an earlier AFD that I opened for discussion - while very specific, individual museum exhibits (that aren't typical artworks) are notable (such as Tristan Quilt or Margaret Layton's embroidered jacket or Luck of Edenhall - these are very exceptional instances. (I also thought of the Tarkhan dress but that article is very minimal, although the object itself is indisputably notable). This is "my area of specialism" - being clothing/fashion related - and I'm dubious about it because of these reasons. I vote keep, because I feel obligated to do so based on the article and that it is something sort of approaching my area of specialism, but I am aware that this will potentially make it fair game to flood Wikipedia with articles on every single thing from museum catalogues that has been discussed in multiple sources. I think notability for this garment as a very rare survival of its type has been demonstrated beyond doubt. However, if kept it will need to be renamed so as not to confuse it with the 100+ other caftans in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum. Has this caftan a "name?" Is it called, say, the Moshchevaja Balka Caftan? Perhaps someone should create Moshchevaja Balka burial to discuss the archaeological site and the artefacts found therein, and have a chapter/section there specifically for this caftan as a notable artefact found therein? Mabalu (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu:. Did you notice sourcing is entirely PRIMARY, to journals published by the Met (and 2 cites sourcing info about the type, not the specific object). Would you consider supporting a redirect to a new article about archaeologically discovered textiles or garments along the silk road? (you would know how to phrase/delimit such an articls better than I.) Because, as you say, keeping articles about objects sources exclusively to the museum that owns them is a highly problematic precedent to set.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the abobe: I'm not really bothered about primary sourcing in cases such as this, because major museums are usually really reliable sources even if technically there is a conflict of interest. They're not trying to sell a viewpoint or sell their stuff, they just want to share their research and findings and more-than-usually-informed interpretations of objects they have, from an expert's point of view. So no, in this circumstance, the COI doesn't really bother me. Mabalu (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the naming question, drawing from examples in a different medium, one could include the accession number., as in Neck Amphora by Exekias (Berlin F 1720). The new title could be Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1) or Caftan from Caucasus region (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vases are often referred to in this way, like manuscripts; generally catalogue/accession numbers are best avoided in titles, as no-one even in the field will recognize them. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article could gave a stronger name. Thinking about what it should be called .... - PKM (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (as expanded) any reasonably complete 1200-year-old garment from anywhere is very likely to be notable, for heaven's sake, as they are so rare. Personally I am in favour of decent articles on individual examples of all sorts of artefacts. There is in fact no "danger" here, as very few people write such articles. Note that the entire Category:Individual garments tree has (I think) under 10 ordinary textile garments from before 1900 (excluding armour, crowns etc) for all world history! You will find the same very sparse coverage in most "Individual foo" categories. If you want silly over-coverage in museum areas look at paintings and biblical manuscripts. Yes, a more specific name would be better. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The problem with this article is that it is trying to do too much, covering both what a caftan is and one fine example of one in a museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following article expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As above, any object like this, 1200-year-old - rare as hen's teeth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the article ~~is entirely PRIMARY sourced~~ (correction: lacks WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing) (with the exception of 2 sources that describe this category of garment, not the garment itself). I love articles on individual museum objects such as the Arles Rhône 3 or the Magdala stone, but objects require secondary sourcing. Here we have only the Museum's own curators and journals. I think we need to Redirect and merge to an article on something like Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not WP:PRIMARY at all, but they do lack full independence. However, this is normal in articles on museum objects, where the best sources are very often provided by the museum, although often only as publisher, with the authors outside experts. There is no precedent being set here; instead the normal practice is being followed. In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited are scholarly, but they are published in the journal of the Museum that owns the object. Notability needs to be supported by sources that are independent of the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. That's what I'm saying. Btw, Knauer at least does not seem to have been a museum employee. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnblod, you are aware that the Met Journal commissions such articles, not for pay, rather, the Museum invites scholarly experts to come to the museum in order to examine a specific object and write it up for the journal? All perfectly scholarly and legit, just not independent.(private but widely understood info among museum professionals; no I don't have a source for this assertion. I just know how this journal works.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And I am aware of the standards WP normally applies for such articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the scholarship, only WP:INDY. I have brought this question to [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Conflicts of interest "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as per: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conflict of interest, but COI's can be managed, and the MMA's standards, like those of other major museums, are such that it can reasonably be assumed that they have been. If there was a decent name to use as a search term it is very possible other sources would turn up. There may well be ones in Russian, but that's little help to most of us. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target? Unless notability can be WP:INDEPENDENTLY sourced, I suggest that this discussion focus on finding an appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per E.M. Gregory. Sources most affiliated with the subject. Also agreeing with Peterkingiron's comment that most of the article expanded version does not deal with that particular caftan but with caftans in similar contexts. Hence, the deadly blow to Wikipedia's general architecture, that keeping such a page would mean. A peril that Mabalu explains very well in his comment. darthbunk pakt dunft 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a cogent, interesting, appropriately sourced article, exactly what I think of as "encyclopedic". The concerns about COI and independent sources are valid -- but unavoidable with many many objects of antiquity. @PKM:'s work here to expand the article is solid. The article should be renamed per comments above. --Lockley (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend WP:GNG for "objects of antiquity". I paraphrase Lockley and most of the editors above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's accept, at least prima facie, the "independence" or ability to manage COI of major museums. In fact we do this all all the time, for example for all types of information put out by government-run or financed organizations. It's a great mistake to prefer, as many editors do, garbled summaries of the same information scribbled down by "independent" journalists. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the scholarship of scholars, including scholars employed or commissioned to evaluate artifacts by museums. However, we absolutely require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish notability.as I and others suggest above, this material can be WP:PRESERVED by merged this to a broader topic with INDEPENDENT sourcing in re: notability..E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTABILITY is clear on this, notability is evidenced by independent sources. This has nothing to do with reliability, scholarly etc etc. And there is not enough independent sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - lack of independence does not cause this article to violate our key policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, in my opinion. The completeness and tone of the article shows that the subject can be encyclopedic without OR. Also, the MET Museum Journal is an edited journal with a review process standard to academic journals. The editorial board is all(?) MET department members, none of which are the authors of the articles on the Caftan. Two of the three authors are, however, connected to the MET. Harper is Curator Emerita in the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kajitani is conservator in chief of the Department of Textile Conservation. Knauer was not at the Met and was a leader at the Penn museum (her husband was Georg Nicolaus Knauer). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Metropolitan Museum Journal is issued annually by The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Its purpose is to publish original research on works in the Museum’s collections." [5]. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Saying independence is required as you did further above and repeat here, does fit with what WP:IS says, but every time that essay says that, it refers to WP:RS, and to me the MET Museum Journal is a reliable source. I guess my argument is based on WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article doesn't violate, for example, WP:USESPS, and is more or less a secondary source based on WP:PSTS/WP:USEPRIMARY. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kaftan, the existing article on the garment. Those who advocated for "keep" above have not addressed the "independent of the subject" clause of the general notability guideline. This is a common problem among the many articles recently created for objects in the Met's collection following the Met's open access image release. No one is questioning the garment's importance, but how should it be covered? If the Met-specific garment is only covered in Met-specific sources, it would show that the object is only of importance to the Met. If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications—that is the intent of the "independent" clause. (Please ping me if you find more of those sources!) As it stands, most of the article is about the general use of the caftan, as @Peterkingiron noted, and as such, can be reasonably covered in the general article on caftans. (The Met journals are also fine sources for the general article, with no issues of independence because the article's subject isn't the Met-specific caftan.) If and when the garment, in specific, becomes separately notable from the general history of the garment, as shown in reliable sources independent of the subject, it can always split out summary style. czar 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The independence issue has been extensively addressed above, it's just there is not agreement on the matter. Several people are "questioning the garment's importance" - what exactly is the difference between notability and importance? To say "If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications" - by which you effectively mean more publications available online in English - shows a misplaced faith, in particular given that the garment only reached the market in 1994, and that in this obscure field most publications are in Russian and German, like the large books on textile finds from this site by Ierusalimskaja, which no one involved in the debate has seen (in Russian and German). I don't see how "most of the article is about the general use of the caftan" at all, and this article would unbalance a shortish article about this very broad term, which is unspecific, not to say vague, like "robe" or "coat" in European clothing. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed, not addressed. If there is some litany of Russian/German sources that address the garment in detail, they are not mentioned in the article. All the other sources are affiliated with the Met, the organization that also holds the garment, making it (and those those articles) non-independent. If the article was on the burial or series of findings there, source independence would not be an issue. czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(did not vote above)Restructure -- The suggested merge target is a wide-ranging article, which would be unbalanced by a standard merger. Furthermore that article states that the Russian version differs from those of other countries some as far afield as Senegal. The Met Journal looks like an academic journal, probably peer-reviewed, and may therefore be sufficiently independent (though I have not investigated closely). I would suggest that we keep a short article on the Met garment itself and merge a summary of the rest into Kaftan. Nevertheless, we should not encourage articles on every museum object. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that the Met Jornal appears once a year, with 12-14 articles. The museum contains over 2 million objects, so most will have to wait millennia for their turn. Yet this object has had three different articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and proposal. Well, this has all been most instructive. Comments first, and then a proposal.
- Comments: (1) If this article had first been moved to main space in its current form, I doubt that anyone would have raised objections to its structure, focus, or sourcing. I am well aware that it is far from perfect - I have dug very deep looking for additional discussions of this object, to no avail. (2) It's news to me that a section on "background" or "context" for a highly-specific topic is inappropriate. Given an encyclopedia that has essentially infinite page space and infinite entry points, establishing context seems critical to me. (3) I believe articles on historical and cultural topics are once again being held to a higher standard than articles on other topics. How many articles on spacecraft do we have that are based solely on NASA documents? (Note, I think there's nothing wrong with that.) (4) I think establishing a standard in support of the independence of scholarly work published by or on behalf of museums is important, but I don't this AfD discussion is the place where that can happen.
- Proposal. I suggest that this article be moved to Moshchevaja Balka textiles and expanded to include the leggings at the Met and anything we can properly source on the related items in the Hermitage, with the caftan cited as a representative example. We can also expand Silk Road which doesn't mention the North Caucasus route at all currently, and possibly trim the "Context" section after. Would these changes satisfy the outstanding objections? - PKM (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the best merge/repurpose proposal, though I'd be interested to see how the current nom will do at closing. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'd prefer to keep as a standalone article, with a possible more descriptive rename to North Caucasus caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (especially as the link to Moshchevaja Balka is based on a very educated scholarly deduction and not a documented chain of custody to an excavation). - PKM (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Rename Moshchevaja Balka burial, as suggested above by User:Mabalu would enable us to source the article to sources like this book on the silk road [6]. 'Note two things about that reference to the burial: First, that this source does not mention this caftan, only that silks were found in the burial. Second, that it is only one of the many preserved remnants of ancient garments found along the silk road in recent year. I want to Note also that this significant object is very far from being as unique as some editorial assert above. Garments have emerged from digs not only along the silk road, but out of the tundra, from European bogs, and from deserts; the Met itself owns a spectacular collection of ancient garments from Roman era Egyptian burials (i.e. older than this garment) that were previously held by the Brooklyn Museum. Certainly we should have articles on these things, but they need solid INDEPENDENT sourcing just as all articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a discussion with so many !votes is unorthodox but in this case it seems the prudent decision to allow further discussion on the merge/redirect/restructure proposals made in the last two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve content. There's not a standardized, catchy, one-word answer to how I think this needs to be handled. The current article is problematic. It approaches this topic from its perspective as a museum exhibit. Accordingly, the academic journal sponsored by the museum to publish research about its exhibits strains the definition of sources "independent" of the subject. But of course, what is important and notable about this object is not that it is a museum exhibit per se, but that it represents an archaeologically significant textile discovery from an archaeologically significant Silk Road burial site. The information here (absent some of the backgrounder on the definition of a caftan) is best served in an article at a different title. Moshchevaja Balka burial is my preferred choice, which also allows us to include other information about the site, its history, its discover, and so forth... Moshchevaja Balka textiles is a narrower topic that also seems plausible if there are other sources that specifically address the textiles at length. I'd rather we start with the former and spin out the latter if that proves necessary. Something like Silk Road archaeology is a broader alternative if Moshchevaja Balka lacks supporting sources. This approach solves the independence problem; the subject is no longer a specific item qua museum exhibit, and so the non-independence of the current sourcing evaporates. It also avoids the uncomfortable suggestion that articles on every individual museum holding might in and of themselves be plausible. This isn't strictly a redirect, and since the target article doesn't exist yet, can't in good faith by called a merge. Fundamentally though, our goal should be to keep the encyclopedic content, but not here and not precisely like this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Moshchevaja Balka burial allows wider information, but who exactly is the "us" who's going to write it? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like PKM, I'd prefer to keep it as it is (as !voted above) but Moshchevaja Balka textiles is certainly better than deletion. But who will write the broader content, to do which properly Russian or German are really necessary? The article is now greatly improved since nomination, and the nom arguments now I think don't apply. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An expanded Moshchevaja Balka article would be fine for details on the excavation, caftan, other items, but since it doesn't exist, I have to stick with the merge recommendation as the article's sources are not independent (all affiliated with the Met, the garment's holder). A merge, I'll add, also preserves the article history for anyone who wants to excavate it. Speaking of, want to drop some sources for this burial so we can stub it and call it a day? czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that this artefact has been the sole subject of multiple scholarly papers is a strong indicator of notability (and I'd certainly expect a perfectly preserved garment from the 8th century to be notable!). I appreciate the concerns about the independence of these sources—I can't find any indication that the Metropolitan Museum Journal is peer reviewed and its editorial board all work at the Met—but let's be pragmatic here. We require independent sources to protect the encyclopaedia from promotionalism and misinformation disseminated by people with an axe to grind. The Met, one of the world's foremost museums, has nothing to gain from misrepresenting objects in its collection in its in-house journal. And I highly doubt it gets any promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation. The journal may not be technically independent, but it fits the spirit of the independence criteria in the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I interrupt this discussion to Note that museums do in fact covet "promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation." Museums are not so unlike other institutions. They can fail (see Category:Defunct art museums and galleries), even major art museums in wealthy cities can fail (see:Corcoran Gallery of Art, not to mention the Met's current, massive financial problems. Museums compete for scholarly prestige not least because it attracts loans, curators, visiting scholars and, most of all, donors of both cash and artifacts. Note moreover that this article was promoted and (deprodded) by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Met who ought at that moment to have insisted that it either find an WP:INDEPENDENT source or be included within a topic that has secondary sourcing. A small slip by someone who contributes a lot to the project, but surely an indication of the ease with which great institutions and the Wikipedians associated with them can too easily regard themselves as above the rules that apply to lesser mortals. ~~It is problematic to have a "Wikipedian in residence" at a museum arguing to "keep" [7] an article sourced solely to a journal published by that museum.~~ Would we feel differently about a single-artifact article sole sourced to articles in The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, a highly regarded publication of the highly regarded - but small - Wolfsonian-FIU? WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule. We need to apply it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the museum, and I had deprodded it, because I felt it deserved a full AfD discussion, but have abstained from a "keep" or "delete" here. FWIW, I think this is a general issue of sourcing to museum journals, and that principles should be applied uniformly, not just to the larger ones.--Pharos (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a PROD was too aggressive. Certainly WP:PRESERVE this well-sourced material. But can you specify what principles should apply to museum journals?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)(I never miss visiting the Wolfsonian when I'm in South Beach, and certainly regard The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, as a WP:RS. But I do not think we should WP:IAR and keep any article single sourced to the journal of the museum that holds it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that WP:IAR applies here. WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule, but applying it pedantically here would be a net loss for the encyclopaedia. Does anyone actually think there is something wrong with the material in the article cited to the Met's journal? – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now can we return to considering whether to WP:PRESERVE this material by merging it into something focal like Moshchevaja Balka textiles, Moshchevaja Balka or Moshchevaja Balka burial or into something broad like Silk Road archaeology, or Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're here to consider whether the article should be deleted. Keeping it in its current form is a viable option – one which so far the majority of editors have supported. Please don't try to restrict the discussion to your preferred outcomes, E.M.Gregory. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a majority vote, it's a discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to delete it. Only to avoid the precedent that would be set by keeping an article about an object sourced solely to an organ of the museum that owns it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note my citation above of the fact that while the Metropolitan Museum Journal i sscholarly, it only publishes articles about objects owned by the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: as the PRODder and then AfD nominator, I feel I should add something to this lengthy and thoughtful discussion. When I PRODded the article with rationale "It's an interesting object but nothing indicates that it is notable in Wikipedia terms: the encyclopedia can't reproduce the museum catalogue of every museum in the world.", it was a very few sentences, sourced to the museum record and one of the journal articles. I was probably alerted to it by noticing it as an item in Category:Stubs with a bracketed disambiguator - while stub-sorting I often check these to make sure that they are accessible from their undisambiguated title, via a hatnote or dab page entry. I've just added a rather ungainly "redirect" hatnote to Kaftan. I am amazed that this object, if it is such a treasure of the museum, does not have a popular name like the Lewis chessmen - but perhaps it is more of a scholars' object than a museum visitors' attraction. Clearly this object is of scholarly significance, but I wonder how anyone is likely to find it in the encyclopedia - the article is not linked from any mainspace pages, though from a vast number of internal Wikipedia pages. I am not a textile history or museology expert so find it hard to opine on the notability of this object. The article as it currently stands appears to be of encyclopedic value, and we need to somehow establish criteria so that items on well-documented and extraordinary objects can be retained, while WikiMedians in Residence and others are deterred from copying large chunks of their catalogue records into the encyclopedia (Tall-stem thermometers?). PamD 22:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form (!vote of nominator): On consideration of the arguments above, I think that the museum's journal, while not strictly "independent", is a valid source: the museum's own regard for its reputation will ensure that only quality scholarly papers are published in it. I have concerns about the article title, but the object is almost certainly "notable" and merits coverage in our encyclopedia - whether as this stand-alone article or as a section of Moshchevaja Balka burial site or similar. PamD 22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday AM

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

Local organization with no inherent notability and no national or regional news coverage. Fails WP:ORG Rogermx (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the Toastmasters International article, the organization has nearly 16,000 local clubs. There is nothing to suggest this particular one is in any way notable—the article is full of broken links and "references" that don't actually discuss the topic, and I can't find any evidence of notability on my own either. Camerafiend (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, no notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bellatrix Female Warriors

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following articles: SLAM! Sports [8]. Fighting Spirit Magazine [9]. Eastern Daily Press [10]. World News [11]. Plus, a mention in Sisterhood of the Squared Circle: The History and Rise of Women’s Wrestling, a book by ECW Press. Coverage from 2013 to present. Nikki♥311 23:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Nikki's findings.LM2000 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG; could use cleanup and expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to anyone creating a redirect at this title, as long as there is a suitable target. Hut 8.5 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Public School, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur

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

Fails WP:GNG.Written by a WP:COI editor.At minimum could be redirected to Jaipur.Zero mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, clear COI, fails notability criteria on all levels, the photo of school is not a photo, but a painting of building plan. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable references to this school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no independent source can be found, then it fails WP:verifiabilty whatever our usual practice of keeping articles about high schools. If independent refs are found I would reconsider. Edison (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:https://rpspn.educationstack.com seems to be a secondary source.FORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 10:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Forceradical:--rpspn stands for the name of the school.And educationstack.com is domain name.How does it appar to be a sec. source esp. given the contents of the website?It is the school website!Winged Blades^Godric 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get worked up- I may have confused it with another reputable website with a similar name.SorryFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric and Forceradical: it is not school's website. rpspn is subdomain. Not sure if it can be edited by the school or not though. From the looks of it, i would say its a paid review. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran::--I have my doubt.But whatever the heck that is, it obviuoly isn't a WP:RS!Winged Blades^Godric 10:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some tangential discussion

HeyWinged Blades of Godric You seem to be extremely worked up about a small issue.Calm down!!Truncated message per oversight policyFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 11:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Winged Blades of Godric and Forceradical: All of us are here in goodfaith, to contribute to wikipedia. We shouldnt fight among ourself. Yes, WB Godric seems a little worked up today. Maybe you should take a wiki-break for a few hours. Getting freshened up with wikibreaks is sort necessary for everybody. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Forceradical:Chill down!No body is worked up!And in case you don't know, redirect-wars are resolved in AFDs.Also, pings don't work, unless signed.Winged Blades^Godric 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Shouldn't WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES apply here? Coderzombie (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per standing procedure for nn schools. Whatever OUTCOMES says, nominator and other deletionists PLEASE NOTE that 'redirect' rather than 'deletion' is an official Wikipedia Policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't read this except through Google translate, but these results seem to suggest that the school has a reputation for excellence in the area and has enough community events [12] [13] to expect wider coverage. These are of course only the results that I as an English-speaker with zero knowledge of Hindi was able to find without searching through local papers. @Winged Blades of Godric and Kudpung: I'd be interested to see both of your assessments. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:--Sorry, I have strong doubts whether the source pass WP:RS.The writing seems promotional and may be paid.Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RDX (Band)

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

Refs are mostly to a PR / SEO firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that this is undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's content may be a promotional mess, but the subject may scrape by WP:BAND with non-trivial coverage from Jamaica Observer and Clash magazine. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still comes up short of WP:GNG, promotional or not, if you look at true WP:RS sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG. sourcing in article insufficient in depth. Clash is not sufficient in depth. Just saw reviews that are WP:MILL.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Nursing College, Jaipur

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

Fails WP:GNG.Written by a WP:COI editor.At minimum could be redirected to Jaipur.Zero mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable references to this school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is just a proxy for their webpage. we are not here for WP:PROMO Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat PG Girls College, Jaipur

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

Fails WP:GNG.Written by a WP:COI editor.At minimum could be redirected to Jaipur.Zero mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, clear COI, fails notability criteria on all levels. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable references to this school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - there is consensus that the sources added during the AfD demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh

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

Of the sources only 1 covers the subject in depth and this is from 2007 in Peace News. Difficult to know what their readership is (nothing found) but they have less than 2k followers on FB. The book only makes a very very short passing mention of ACE and the other sources only list them as a signatory. fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Domdeparis (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some more discussion, including in academic works; I added a link to a 2-page account by Chris Atton who has also written about it elsewhere. But I am concerned that there's a network of related articles about not very notable organisations and publications also including Counter Information and Edinburgh unemployed workers centre which could probably be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was skeptical at first, but this organization was lucky enough to attract significant attention from scholars. For example, it seems to have been a subject of case study done in this book: Nick Couldry; James Curran (22 September 2003). Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-0-7425-7520-2. over several pages (~60+). That is likely sufficient for notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established based on sources added or cited since start of AfD. Other related articles can be dealt with separately. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources show significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and thus passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas O'Grady

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

Cannot find any secondary sources for subject. Fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No awards for the music career or any reliable secondary coverage of other accomplishments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here is the Triple J Unearthed writeup. It reads as a polite attempt to speak nicely of a band that has had very limited success. If Triple J Unearthed isn't going to break them into superstardom, then neither are we. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waging War (album)

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

not notable, no sources, just a tracklist Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for the album confers blogs and Discogs, none of which contribute to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swift (band)

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

not notable, no secondary sources Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Not sure why the relists but hopefully my vote will seal the delete. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with only one clear vote (delete). It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kenny

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

Fails WP:BAND - no hits, no national tours, no national recording contract, mainly local media coverage, Rogermx (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has one Asbury Park Music Award for "Top Male Acoustic Act" in 2008. Is that one award sufficient to meet WP:NBAND? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that one award confers notability. Am looking at this link for 2008 awards, do not see him listed. https://www.bandsonabudget.com/articles/28-2008-asbury-music-awards-followup Rogermx (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page needs several revisions but not deletion. According to this notable source via Relix magazine Keith has been involved in national tours http://www.jambands.com/news/2016/09/02/keith-kenny-announces-west-coast-tour-dates/ and has been collaborating with other notable musicians Dean Ween https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Ween Also the link provided by Rogermx does mention his award at the top of the list https://www.bandsonabudget.com/articles/28-2008-asbury-music-awards-followu stephancypants
- Stephancy, thanks for catching my error on the award. However, this is not a Grammy. Regarding the tours, they look like club tours, not concert tours. As far as collaborating, it does not mean that he is part of any notable band. Still believe that he is not notable.Rogermx (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the coverage rises to the level to pass our notability guidelines on musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vito Moubry

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

Absolutely no claim or indication of notability. Slashme (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not usually a good sign when the first google hits on a subject's name are Wikipedia, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and the subject's own website. I see no evidence that anyone has published something substantial about the subject. He may been have written for notable publications, but that does not establish notability. Mduvekot (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estevão Toledo

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

Article about a non-notable furniture designer. Unambiguous self-promotion. Tagged for notability and sourcing concerns for months now. Slashme (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. The article seems self-promotional, like an advertisement for a non-notable designer. A news, newspaper and book search did not turn up enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments, in particular David Eppstein's careful analysis, are more convincing. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Adelson

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

This professor doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, and I can't see evidence that she passes the WP:GNG. She's mentioned in passing in very many sources, but I can't find in-depth coverage anywhere. Slashme (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete as per nom, no in depth RS coverage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets Wikipedia policies

I hope that this posting can address the comments of editors Slashme and Deathlibrarian 1. With respect to the issue of passing the WP:PROF

a. Professor Adelson’s page documents that she has done academic work whose representation in Wikipedia serves the online community well. Further the page’s reference articles are by leading scientists in key refereed journals. As to the impact and importance of the work, as a faculty member at Yale she was invited to the National Science Foundation to serve as a Program Director and create a cognitive science program (reference 8 in the page under question). She served repeated elected terms on the Executive Board of her professional association SIG:CHI and during that time twice co-chaired their international conferences and edited the conference proceedings(see vita link below). Her work on the results of meditation practice is endorsed by the Dalai Lama (reference 10). Her work on categorization explained how we understand abstract concepts. Previous work had only looked at our understanding of the physical world (reference 5). Her work on analogical problem solving (reference 3), memory organization (reference 4), problem deconstruction in conflict resolution (reference 6), and discovery and insight processes (reference 7) have, along with her other several dozen papers received over 2,000 citations in refereed articles building on the work. Dr. Adelson has authored dozens of refereed publications; received over a million dollars in refereed competitive research funding and been asked to speak at institutions such as UC Berkeley and TJ Watson research center. (The above is documented at: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/vita.pdf

b. Her work on meditation also has significant intellectual and societal impact: She is rendering original Buddhist texts into language useful in society today. This has allowed her to develop meditation practices which have helped hundreds of people with concerns like chronic pain, interpersonal relations, and eating disorders (this teaching is made accessible through the websites of the Philadelphia Meditation Center ( http://www.philadelphiameditation.org/ ), the 24th St. Sangha ( http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/The%2024th%20Street%20Sangha%20.pdf) and the main and neighborhood branches of the Philadelphia Public Libraries; Philadelphia has a population of 1,600,000). (This work is documented at http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/ and http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/The%2024th%20Street%20Sangha%20.pdf )

c. The two paragraphs above address meeting criteria 1, 4, and 6 of WP:PROF.

d. Editor “Slashme's” comment: “She's mentioned in passing in very many sources, but I can't find in-depth coverage” does not address a Wikipedia criterion. “Deathlibrarian’s similar comment “no in depth RS coverage” seems to refer to the same issue; again, this is not a Wikipedia criterion.

2. As to editor “Slashme’s” comment, “I can't see evidence that she passes the WP:GNG”, it does not seem to apply; that appears to be the set of criteria for topics, not for individuals; this is the page of an individual. (However, if the notability of the topics on which Dr. Adelson has worked needs to be addressed, that is documented in the page’s 2nd reference by Nobel Laureate Herb Simon, and in the 4th reference by CMU’s J.K. Mellon University Professor John Anderson).

3. It may serve the online community well to have an accessible record of Dr. Adelson’s work and to be able to contact her in order to build on it. Mjholloway1 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Mjholloway1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Keep In response to editors Slashme and Deathlibrarian's assertions I see the following documentation:

Criteria 1, 4 & 6 of WP:PROF are met. (See the documented publications and appointments on the page; paragraphs 1 and 2). As to RS, the references are by the most respected scholars in that field publishing in the most respected peer reviewed journal's (e.g. see Ullman, Newell, Ericsson, Fodor and Anderson; reference #s 5,2,3,8,4 respectively). The criteria for WP:GNG, topics of notability, do not apply. This is a person's not a topic's page. However, Adelson's topics are notable (again see e.g. Erickson, Fodor, Ullman, Newell, the Dalai Lama & Anderson; reference #s 3,8,5,2,10,4 respectively). The criticism that the references, while quite numerous, do not give lengthy descriptions of Adelson's research is: a: not a Wikipedia criterion and b: not the convention of writing in this field. However, the numerous references reflect that Adelson's work was the impetus for many, including these, subsequent significant works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnie A. Silver (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC) — Arnie A. Silver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepI find that this page more than meets the criteria for the notability of a professor. Google Scholar shows that more than 2,200 other scientists have used Dr. Adelson’s work as a scaffold to build further understanding. Additionally, paragraphs 1 and 2 and the reference section of the Adelson Wikipedia page; and her vita all show long and consistent service to her field through notable appointments. Given this, is there an underlying motivation to the delete request? Rachel Allen (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC) — Rachel Allen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:PROMO and WP:TNT. I believe she does pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is so promotionally written and badly sourced that it would be better to delete it and start from scratch than to keep any remnant of it in its current state.

I checked the first five references in the current version of the article. Reference [1], Curtis, Krasner, and Iscoe, mentions her work only trivially as one of six works cited to support the sentence "Nevertheless, few software development models include process components identified in empirical research on design problem-solving". Reference [2], Newell and Simon's "Human Problem Solving" [14], appears not to mention her (the only hits I found for her name were for someone else with a similar name). Reference [3], Ericsson and Lehmann, again cites her work, in paragraphs on pp. 285, 293, 294, and 295, but in a similarly trivial way that fails to support any claims in the article. Reference [4] cites her work as one of six references for the statement that "the structure of cognition changes from domain to domain and behavior changes as experience increases ... this shows up in comparisons between novices and experts" and fails to support our article's claim that she studied "memory organization". Reference [5], Ullman et al [15], cites her work multiple times, none of which support our article's claims that her work studies "categorization processes in the domain of computer science".

I.e. none of these scholarly references actually says anything nontrivial that supports our article. They are all merely passing and routine citations of her work as one would expect to find for all academics at all levels of significance. And the fact that what they say is so far removed from what our article claims they say indicates to me that active deception may be going on, not mere incompetence in citation. I didn't check all the rest of the references, but even the non-scholarly references are suspect. For instance, reference [10] is used for a very specific claim, "Her research on how intensive meditation effects perception and action in interpersonal and professional conflict is endorsed by the Dalai Lama", but in fact the reference itself (an image on Abelson's own web site that purports to be a scan of a letter from the Dalai Lama) speaks only in vague terms about the Shamatha Project.

Given these severe sourcing problems, and the apparent promotional intent visible in efforts such as putting such a scan online (and the apparent recruitment of new editors to participate in this AfD), I think we must delete. However, if an experienced editor works to save the article by removing the bad sources and trimming it down to something verifiable, I might be willing to change my opinion.—David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, she doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Only seems to be mentioned in passing if at all. It also appears to be more of a WP:PROMOTION violation for a meditation teacher trying to use prior academic work to justify an wikipeida bio to include the mediation stuff. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately for the author, I find that there is not much worth salvaging from this because of WP:PROMOTION. Sifting whether she meets WP:PROF or not ends up being a judgment call. I chose to judge no. I thank David Eppstein for his analysis above. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Budaun. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vodamayuta

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

No Citation, Self written Wikibaji (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect. According to what is written, Vodamayuta is a former name for a city, Budaun, (source:Ancient India book) with an existing article. Thus would have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". With little history for the city at the article (which might allow a fork/split), a redirect is most appropriate. Spshu (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect [was "Merge"]. It doesn't duplicate an existing topic, because the Vaduan article's history section doesn't mention it. It could be merged though, leaving a redirect behind. I don't know its motive, but the suggestion to delete the topic before redirecting it strikes me as mean-spirited, as if to punish the original contributor for actually contributing something worthwhile. Their contribution should be kept at least in the edit history of the redirect. --do ncr am 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before and after my recent edit to Budaun (not Vaduan) does in fact mention Vodamayuta: "According to tradition, Budaun was founded about 905 AD, and an inscription, probably of the 12th century, gives a list of twelve Rathor kings reigning at Budaun (called Vodamayuta)." This is directly from the EB1911 Encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i stand corrected. Redirect. --do ncr am 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Badayun, or rather Budaun. There is no need for the present stub, other than as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If the article is developed, it can be forked later, but for now this seems like a reasonable search term for the material at Budaun. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Cupp 2011

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

Only one reference, sources don't establish notability Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to have plenty media coverage[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. I don't know exactly which Indian websites count as reliable sources: The Indian Express, Oneindia (owners of Filmibeat), and Daily News and Analysis seem to be at least some of the time, and bollywood.com seems widely cited on here. The article needs a reception section though - there are plenty of negative reviews to cite. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable feature film. Reviewed by major publications. I have added the reception section to the article. Definitely meets WP:NFILM. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NFP: [24], [25], [26], [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenfetch

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

Fails WP:GNG - non notable software TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Screenfetch is a popular tool for sharing screenshots of Linux desktops. Articles covering screenfetch include [28] [29] [30] [31]. Microsoft even featured it on their Linux on Windows demonstration. [32] Also the Spanish Wikipedia has a longer article and more references. Henry (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Henry. –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those refs aren't reliable, secondary sources. Is there really no list of Linux tools/terminal scripts that can house the few sentences of coverage this warrants? czar 17:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Richard A. E. North. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcit

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

The subject matter concerned does not warrant a specific article, there is nothing that discerns this from the article from other areas where the UK's possible future membership of the EU is considered; including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#Possible_Withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_UK_relationship_with_the_EU. Neither does this article warrant merging as these issues are already considered in more detail at these pages. The creation of this article is an attempt to tie the idea of joining the EEA to a specific person, Richard North. The fact that he advocates joining the EEA upon leaving the EU until a further deal can be reached is already referenced in a concise manner on his biography page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._E._North#European_Union EU explained (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The term "Flexcit" does not seem to be widely used, other than by the author. Additionally, there is not sufficient content to justify separate articles for specific proposals for the UK's deal for a future relationship with the EU post-withdrawal. If there is any salvageable content it should be merged to Brexit or Continuing UK relationship with the EU. If these articles grow then it could always be WP:SPLIT in the future. TDL (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems pretty clear to me, not sure why this has been relisted. Delete per WP:NEO Euexperttime (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge this neologism that fails WP:NEO to Richard A. E. North. ( Not seeing sufficient use of term ot justify a redirect to Continuing UK relationship with the EU.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's about the proposed plan and not the word, and the references show that it is one of the few external suggestions that is used in UK Government planning for leaving the EU, a process which is hardly one that needs less coverage. JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single passing reference in a WP:RS to the plan being "perused" is not sufficient to demonstrate that the plan meets the WP:GNG of "significant coverage". I can find only a few other mentions. WP:BLOGS aren't reliable, and can't be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to be promoting blogs. TDL (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M.Gregory's proposal to redirect this to Richard A. E. North
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard A. E. North; not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Would be preferable to a 'merge' outcome is the article is largely unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this nattering non-notable neologism. --Lockley (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus regarding the school and delete regarding the series. If someone thinks there is material worth merging, leave me a message and I'll temp-undelete the series's article for that. Regards So Why 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Oil School of Racing

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Prodded, but WP:SPA creator removed with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are tightly linked:Peter Rehse (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that this page is also non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notification per the notification language after updating information and adding another external reference. Apart from age of the organization, this article is no more or less subjectively notable than articles for similar organizations, Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving or Skip Barber Racing School. The latter has had outstanding issues noted as of 2011/2012, but no action has been taken on it and it has not be nominated for deletion. The Skip Barber Racing School article is also several years out of date, with dead links and fewer references than the Lucas Oil School of Racing article. Altemus Prime (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Altemus Prime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. Could you please comment on how you feel it meets WP:NOTABILITY? And do you have a connection to this company, as I see all your edits have been on this topic? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the school, delete the series. The school has attracted articles in NBC Sports, Road & Track and Digital Trends. The race series: [sound of crickets]. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this concerns two articles....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the school Del the series per above. School is notable. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as spam. Just advertorial pages on unremarkable business / promotional activities. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTSPAM. The sources provided are human interest pieces that don't have critical commentary on the business. Weighing the totality of WP:ORG, which tells us to consider the type of coverage to determine if it meets GNG. I don't consider the coverage to be substantial enough to overcome the promotionalism concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep school, delete or merge series per Clarityfiend's argument. -ZarosFlok (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Ayaz

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references and I can find none in English other than editorial credits ^[1]. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is Ayaz Gul, not Gul Ayaz. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if those refer to the same person or not. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needles//Pins

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no strong claim to passage of any notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC, and not enough reliable source coverage to properly carry it. While they've released two albums with a third on the way, if you're going for "notable because their albums exist" NMUSIC requires the albums to have been on major labels or important indie labels -- so the upcoming third album on Mint Records would count as the first of the two required to pass that criterion, while the two previous albums on Mammoth Cave wouldn't count toward passing that criterion at all. And while this does cite coverage from Exclaim! and NPR's All Songs Considered, both of those sources are too short and blurbish to pull off "notable because media coverage" all by themselves -- they'd be perfectly fine within a mix of more solid sources, but neither of them is substantive enough to be the pillar of a GNG claim in an article whose only other sources are a primary source and Beatroute. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they have a stronger claim of notability and more sourcing that can be provided, but this as written is not yet enough. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I felt like with the addition of Jesse Gander and a release on Mint Records, that they've earned a page on Wikipedia. My reasonings:

They've had articles in the Georgia Straight, Exclaim!, and Beatroute magazines/newspapers. All three are notable publications in Canada. I feel like they should meet the criteria for "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]."

-Georgia Straight article: http://www.straight.com/music/needles/pins-relates-romantic-catastrophes

-Exclaim article: http://exclaim.ca/music/article/needlespins_talk_debut_album

-BeatRoute article: http://beatroute.ca/2014/02/03/needlespins-2/

They should also meet the criteria for "5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." because of the following:

-Pretty Much Everything So Far was released on Hosehead records. Hosehead records has at least two notable artists (Banner Pilot and The White Wires).

-Their latest album is being released on Mint records. Mint Records has at least two notable artists (The Smugglers, Neko Case, Andrew W.K., and more)

Finally, for "6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses".

Jesse Gander recently joined the band. He has been apart of d.b.s and Operation Makeout. Both bands who have had released on notable Independent Record Labels (Mint Records). He's also a Record Producer that has worked on Japandroids records and Pack AD records. I feel like he should have his on Wiki page too as he has released some award winning records and has been apart of some popular Indie bands.

Also, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Do I respond by editing your post or through the TALK page?

Thank you,

Alex

Regarding criterion #1, Exclaim! is the only one of those three sources that actually counts as notability-assisting coverage. Alt-weeklies, such as The Georgia Straight or Now, can be used for supplementary sourcing of facts after WP:GNG has already been met, but cannot be bringers of GNG in and of themselves as they have no significant readerships beyond the purely local — and Beatroute isn't accepted as a strong or notability-assisting source either for the same reasons. And one notability-assisting source isn't enough to seal the deal by itself.

Regarding criterion #5, neither Hosehead nor Mammoth Cave is notable enough to count toward passage of that criterion. A record label does not get a free notability pass just for having notable artists on it — it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about it to get over WP:CORPDEPTH. Mint Records is sufficiently notable to count toward #5, but that covers off one album where the criterion requires two.

As for criterion #6, the fact that a member of the band was previously in another band does not automatically satisfy that criterion either. He would have to be independently notable in his own right — but band members are not automatically entitled to standalone articles just for being band members either. He would have to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage, separately from the context of the band, to either qualify for his own independent BLP or have his membership in this band confer notability on the band under #6 — and even if he did, that criterion also requires two independently notable members and not just one.

Overall, criterion #1 is the one part of NMUSIC that every band always has to meet regardless of whether or not they clear any of #2 through #12. A band can clear none of the other criteria and still get an article if there's enough genuinely solid coverage about them to clear #1, and a band can claim to clear all of the other criteria but not get an article if those claims aren't supported by any reliable source coverage that properly verifies the claims as true. (Bands often try to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform by claiming more notability per NMUSIC than they actually have in reality, so the claim has to be properly sourced and cannot count as an inclusion freebie just because it's been claimed.) So the one absolutely essential criterion that has to be met here is stronger sourcing than is present so far. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It's hard to tell what's notable and what's just a supplementary source (especially regarding the Georgia Straight. I thought they'd be better than Exclaim!). I'll keep an eye out for better sources and maybe in the future (perhaps with the release of another record on Mint), they will have earned a Wiki page. Thanks. AlexMichal (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (PST)

Fwiw, I don't agree with @Bearcat: about major weeklies like The Georgia Straight or Now not contributing to WP:GNG -- is that stated somewhere? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that they're subject to the same problems as community weeklies like Toronto's Gleaners and Montreal's The Suburban: they often cover topics of purely hyperlocal interest — an unsigned local band who are playing their first-ever show at Lee's Palace on Saturday, a restaurateur who just opened a kale chip food truck in the Plateau, the president of the "Save the Trees in Stanley Park" committee, etc. — who haven't necessarily achieved anything that would make them a topic of encyclopedic interest. So if there's a strong and solid range of media coverage available, then papers like Now or The Georgia Straight are allowed to be in the mix, but if you're going for "passes GNG because media coverage exists", The Georgia Straight can't be a load-bearing pillar of that claim as very nearly the best source that's actually on offer.

Just for a concrete example of what I mean: if a playwright wins the GG for English drama for her fourth play, and thus graduates to a more solid range of broad coverage, then as long as the article is actually citing some of that broader range of coverage you are allowed to use The Georgia Straight as supplementary sourcing for the names of the three plays she wrote when she was just an emerging local playwright on the Vancouver scene. But what you can't do is use that early Georgia Straight coverage as core support for a WP:TOOSOON article about her while she's just an emerging local playwright who hasn't won a national award yet — it can't carry "notable just because media coverage exists" if it's all (or almost all) of the coverage that actually exists. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response. I just don't agree, in all cases. I know The Suburban well and there's a world of difference between it and, say, a major weekly like Now. Or Village Voice for that matter. And of course, the editorial staff on almost all Canadian daily broadsheets are no less locally focused. Anyway, I don't intend to !vote in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Bearcat: has amply covered the issues with the sources but the bottom line is WP:TOOSOON. Not enough significant WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a fan page; non notable per wiki standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take Heart (The Sam Willows album)

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

Non-notable, one source. Note: Creator has removed PROD and notability tags Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Article has one self-source. Searching found [33] which is an interview with some independent commentary. Sources found by Michig are enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Gab4gab (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability, including [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], --Michig (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, there are references, need to be put into the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added some of the above references to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given no input other than by nominator Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avaza

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

Non-notable software, based almost entirely on interviews on advertising platforms and entrepeneur "communities". Google search revealed no additional independent in-depth coverage (there are a lot of false positives from other "Avaza" topics). Note: I have removed one misrepresented user-review site (see history). GermanJoe (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

ref #1 (Startup Daily): Interview-based, no author information. Every single bit of information is based on the founder's say-so. No evidence of independent journalistic coverage.
- ref #2 (PRWeb, now removed): Not independent coverage, but atleast they are transparent about it.
ref #2 (Enterprise Times): The best of all available sources. Partially based on company information, but it includes some additional critical analysis and uses relatively cautious measured language. Sums itself up neatly with "This could be a company to watch." (WP:TOOSOON).
ref #3 (G2 Crowd): User review-based "research" site, conveniently combined with a purchase advice chat.
ref #4 (nine.com.au): PR announcement based on company info (see the site owner's mission statement), no author info.
ref #5 (Anthill Magazine): 5 shared tips by the company founder, not independent coverage. No author information, but the author added almost no content on their own anyway.

With only 1 OK-ish source and 4-5 fluff pieces, there is not enough independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Azad Kashmir

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

Do we need in in this quality without sources. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear context to article. Appears to be a content fork of Government of Azad Kashmir. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the content is already on Government of Azad Kashmir. Dosent deserve/require a standalone article. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayriss

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

Ineligible for PROD - was deprodded in 2007. I can't find any indication this family is notable as a whole. Sources are all user-generated and I can't locate any others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the family isn't notable; article is (semi-)original research. I don't see any notable people named Ayriss that could be a merge/redirect target, so delete. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN snippet of family history of a NN family, without any RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary and nor should it be. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Excuse me, but what? This player is notable.

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. Since no-one asked for it to be draft-ified to further work on it, I won#t move it there. However, I'm willing to undelete and move to Draft if someone requests it at my talk page. Regards So Why 13:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Norrie

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

Mostly a procedural nomination on my part. This was deleted May 22 after an expired PROD, then recreated by a different user the next day. I A7'd it earlier today, but the creator has pointed out that I missed the credible claim of significance at the very bottom of the page, of being ranked 6th in Britain by the Association of Tennis Professionals. Which, in fairness, I did miss.

However, on the face of it, it appears that the subject fails WP:NTENNIS, so I'm taking this to AfD for a full discussion. As usual, I'm happy to withdraw early if it's found that he does pass WP:GNG or WP:TENNIS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether he passes WP:GNG or WP:TENNIS, but in the event it does not, can I suggest it moves to Draft:Cameron Norrie, as the situation is likely to change shortly and it would be a waste to lose the page through deletion. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG, which is pretty much the same reason I prodded it a week ago. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing notable from this player. If the creator wants to have this userfied in his sandbox, by all means do so. It is quite possible that he will qualify in the near future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an ideal candidate to move to draft/user space; it's WP:TOOSOON now but he will likely meet WP:NTENNIS by the end of the year. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leakgate (India). So Why 09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infraline Energy

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

Primary sourced promotional article on a very small Indian company. No secondary indication of notability. Yes, it exists, but is it encyclopedically notable, and does it adequately demonstrate this? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some Hindustan Times coverage in Feb-Mar 2015, such as "Delhi Police crime branch to quiz Infraline Energy MD" and "Leakgate: GMR, Infraline Energy under lens", but that may be too much about one related event. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

! That might explain why the author of this article hasn't used such sources! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the coverage is about the arrest/scandal. Not entirely sure how Infraline is a dynamic and vibrant organization which believes in innovation and growth, which was pretty representative of the rest of the article in tone, isn't obvious advertising, but otherwise it's a promo piece from an obvious COI account about an unremarkable mid sized company. TimothyJosephWood 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclining towards keep. When I first looked, I went through my sources for energy consultancies (I work around that field) and it failed for any real notability. After AllyD's comment though, I started to look at Indian politics and there's rather more coverage there. If Leakgate (India) was judged notable, I think this might be too - or at least, as a section within a Leakgate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a strong argument that the scandal itself is notable, and that seems to be the problem with the sources, they are about the scandal and not really about the company. In other words, the coverage of the company seems to largely or entirely be incidental to the coverage of the scandal, and what's really needed to establish notability is coverage of the copmany as a company. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now blue linked. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Filegate Leakgate~~ Leakgate (India) with brief mention there. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leakgate (India) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, with such copy as:

"It is self-funded company in the world. It addresses the requirements of over 600 plus organization, including public sector undertakings..."

No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gumnaam Vikramaditya

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

The book/poem is not notable. There do not appear to be any news articles or reviews supporting its notability. The article is an orphan and the lack of notability tag has not been addressed for at least 2 years. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Patois Wikipedia

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

Unclear importance, no sources found or in article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the existence of this particular project, I can't find any sources either. Interesting to know that it exists, but no notability as yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as a side-note, if this is the orthography-to-be for the language, suddenly Reggae will become almost entirely incomprehensible! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Packer (software)

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

No sources except self-references and some niche mentions in passing/marketing material. Last AfD ended in no consensus due to nobody bothering to comment. Ping last AfD creator User:WikiPuppies]. Let's delete this spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This software has been mentioned in numerous articles and several books, so it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources for it. Jarble (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So find it. Linking to Google page and saying that this phrase exists on Google is hardly an argument for anything. WP:BUTITEXISTS is probably the most lame argument you can find at AfD, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not much better.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing independent authoritative sources. The references are to packer.io and related sites.--Rpclod (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:MANUAL; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MANUAL. I'm not seeing much that would demonstrate this software's notability. Reyk _YO! 09:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpiraTeam

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Nicacedric (WP:SPA, creator) with the following rationale "Thank you for your feedback or concern regarding notability. I respectfully but strongly disagree - please look at the 8th reference to see one of the strongest links proving that the information is verifiable and written by a third-party leader". I am not impressed by reference 8, a website with a title like http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com seems almost to be saying 'we review whatever you pay us for'. TechTarget "sells marketing programs and data analytics services for targeted sales and marketing efforts". Marketing, aka spam, is what this entry is. Per WP:CORPSPAM, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a product brochure, with no indications of notability or significance. Simply put, it's spam, & such content belongs on company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just used the Google search above to see if I could find independent sources. I found the following: https://www.pcmag.com/business/directory/online-collaboration/709-inflectra-spirateam https://reviews.financesonline.com/p/spirateam/ https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=EvilDauphin.SpiraTeamExplorer https://www.business-software.com/product/inflectra-spirateam/ http://comparecamp.com/spirateam-review-features-pricing-overview-project-management-software/ http://www.softwaretestingmagazine.com/news/spirateam-5-2-enhances-test-management-functionality/ http://www.scrumexpert.com/news/spirateam-5-2-enables-effective-program-management/ but every one of them suffers the same problem: no byline. In other words, they appear to be paid placements. Conclusion, the product fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and edited predominantly by two accounts whose edits relate to the Inflectra company and its product here. (One account acknowledges on their User Talk page to working for the company.) As others have noted, the current article is effectively a product feature list more appropriate to the company website, but that could be fixed by normal editing. The product listings and reviews presented are enough for basic verification. There is also its appearance in Gartner Magic Quadrants, but I think we have seen in previous AfDs that this is insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability in itself. Overall, while the reviews could go some way towards the inclusion criteria at WP:NSOFT I don't think there is enough to demonstrate particular notability for this product. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheds

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

Play does not appear notable. No significant coverage in independent sources. Performed (self-produced?) in fringe festivals, so not a fully professional production. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs proper reviews to establish notability. Lacking this, delete. Plays or other media are not notable by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a bit out there but not enough in either quality or volume to meet GNG, ie NEXIST, in particular it seems to be repetative so nothing to make for a more in depth article. At the time or writing the article it looks like a TOOSOON, and nothing since. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article has since been updated with further information, references and sources. jcunningham.melb (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly the play had a little bit of coverage, but I suggest the additions unfortunately don't make the play sufficiently notable for WP. Suzy Go See is a blog; Stage Whispers reviews everything including amateur theatre. There don't appear to be any reviews or other coverage from credible publications like The Australian, The Guardian, Adelaide Advertiser, The Age, Herald Sun, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Boneymau (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article should not be deleted as it has been updated with correct and further information, references, sources and an image. tradiejimmy (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — tradiejimmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment a sockpuppetry investigation has been opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/jcunningham.melb. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I've blocked Tradiejimmy (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock puppet of Jcunningham.melb (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prayash Gupta

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

Not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. All sources are WP:Primary, with no evidence from the references here of their work having been published in notable dailies; awards listed are vanity awards, one of which is referenced only by an empty entry on the subject's blog; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article creator. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of coverage of the subject, awards, or otherwise meeting WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a guy with a pen. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-debate. Citations are added of all topics covered in the article with the secondary sources.(Prayatna) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRAYATNA GUPTA (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holoverse

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

There is nothing else to say about this venue except that it has been opened, and its press releases have been picked up by few newspapers and such, who republished them in a slightly changed format. A business opening is not sufficient for an entity to be encyclopedic (WP:NOTNEWS). Also fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will be sure to look into this and source some more articles that support the content. Leave it with me. Thanks. Simon.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep gnews reveals quite a bit of coverage. Including unexpectedly foreign press too. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me quite sufficient NEXIST to support GNG. Not just opening, but first of its type, with new ground in commercialising applied technology. Aoziwe (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to be a bit of coverage, and noted for it being the first holographic based entertainment centre. Also coverage on tech angles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added a piece by The Financial Review for good measure also. I think I best just reiterate also here guys that the government helped fund the site, and officially opened the site. This is a first in the world in technology and is important for the future of 3D entertainment and human digital immersion. It proves that holograms are in fact possible which is a true technological milestone, a significant addition to any encyclopedia. Regards, Simon. SBanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.113.33 (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hemophilia organizations

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

One single general reference for a massive list of organizations with external links (WP:ELNO). Unsuitable per WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:V. Waggie (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it might be a useful resource, it's not encyclopedic content (WP:NOTDIR). If some of these organisations are notable, then it would make sense to have a page giving information/wikilinks, but a very quick survey suggests most are not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - just a spam farm, my god. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no basis in policy for the argument that all religious groups are automatically notable. Sandstein 09:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus

AfDs for this article:

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

It appears that nothing on this page can be verified through reliable sources. Several references did exist, but for various reasons (spam, broken links, irrelevance to the text of the article, self-publishing) not a single one went to a reliable source. I performed the basic searches looking for usable sources but didn't find any. In particular, this organization does not appear to exist on JSTOR or Google News at all, and everything else I've found is only a passing mention. I'm new to this process, so let me know if there's some other information I should be giving or a step that I'm missing. Alephb (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bluemask (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [40] and [41] suggest that it is an extent church with at least two congregations. I don't see any reliable independent sources, only a few self-published books through Google Book Search. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here. I would have no objections to an article on this subject, but if we can't come up with anything we can source, I'd imagine we have to delete the article and wait until third-party reliable sources start covering it. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, Keep -- as we normally do for denominations. The problem is with verifiable content, but that might involve reducing it to a stub, rather than deletion. The problem may be that the relevant sources are in Talagog or some other local language. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any special exception granted to religious denominations that automatically gives them an article outside the normal notability criteria. In fact, WP:ORGSIG claims that all kinds of organizations are held to the same standard. "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see 'If it's not notable', below). 'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.' No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." And I don't think we keep an article on the chance that it might be discussed in reliable sources no editor has managed to find yet. WP:PROVEIT places the burden of proof (finding reliable sources) on whoever is arguing for inclusion. The default position, until sources are found, is the removal of the unsourced material. Alephb (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even for a country filled with tiny sects this one is not notable. Religious organizations and churches are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 05:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge. Interesting. At first I thought that denominations are auto-notable, but indeed, there is no rule saying so, and why they should have an exception? Still, I'd be ok if we could merge it into some sort of a list. List of minor Christian denomination in the Philippines? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article keeps getting relisted. But perhaps the reason it hasn't attracted much comment is that we have an open-and-shut case here. There's zero significant coverage in reliable sources, and no one is attempting to argue this point or add citations. What more is there to talk about here? It's going on four weeks now and no one has yet proposed that a single sentence of this article can be supported with references. Alephb (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lake Mohawk, New Jersey. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Mohawk Yacht Club

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

Other than trivial mentions, can't find any significant coverage of this facility (similar to the current reference #1). In current sourcing, source #2 doesn't even appear to mention the yacht club, merely the fleet of boats which call the lake home. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Lake Mohawk, New Jersey There is encyclopedic content here that can and should be merged into the article for Lake Mohawk, New Jersey, which covers both the lake itself and the surrounding community. Alansohn (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Alansohn. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this entry of leading active sports club on the region. Club members include a world champion (Charles Gabor) and a junior national champion (Kenneth Heitman). There are tons of articles on the WP about other sports clubs (ice hockey, soccer, baseball, etc.) with much less relevance. Anything against sailing ?--Banderas (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 05:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, so having notable members is not enough. The club doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Club athletes (sailors) not only win championships for themselves, but also for the club. The Commodore Hub E. Isaacks Trophy, for example, is awarded to the fleet of the winning skipper, not to the skipper (in this case, Lake Mohawk Yacht Club' Snipe fleet). History is inherited, and this club has relevant history.--Banderas (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Do not know if I would use the word "inherited" but I think a leading active sports club is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - please note that none of the keep !votes has any basis in policy, but are more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn's suggestion. Google search for ("lake mohawk yacht club") only yields 47 results, none of which appears to offer independent in-depth coverage: either the club's own website, directory entries, or passing mentions of events taking place at the club. The only source cited in the article that might satisfy notability requirements is the 1946 Jib Sheet article. However it's not clear how wide a circulation this Jib Sheet had (the name appears to have been used for a number of different sailing clubs' newsletters); the small number of advertisements, most of them for firms in New York state, suggests that it was not widely distributed, so can't be used to support a claim of general notability. Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article, but probably merits a paragraph or two within the Lake Mohawk article. Ammodramus (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lake Mohawk, New Jersey. I find the reasoning of User:Ammodramus and User:Alansohn compelling in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I also agree with a merge decision, as per my original comments back in April prior to bringing this to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Obscured by Clouds. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay (Pink Floyd song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for songs, specifically "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." Although a nice song, and there are good sources, it wasn't a single and there are no notable covers by other artists. There's nothing here that isn't already said in Obscured by Clouds already, aside from the third paragraph in "Analysis" which looks like something Louis Balfour would say on The Fast Show's "Jazz Club" (except adding "mmm, nice" after each sentence). The "(Pink Floyd song)" disambiguator means a redirect to the album is not suitable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why "redirect to the album is not suitable"? Somebody looks for this or links to this, should go to the album. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because we generally don't expect readers to type disambiguator terms in brackets. We could expect them to go to Stay, a disambiguation page, which would then take them to Obscured by Clouds. (I can't find policy at the moment but I have seen this happen on a number of occasions). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We may not "expect" readers to type the disambibuator, but some do (I certainly do when I suspect there may be a disambiguator like this). So I don't see why it is better to send those readers who do type the disambiguator to a dab page rather than redirecting them directly to the album. Rlendog (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the disambiguation page for Stay already links to the album. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. People could realistically put the current title into the search box, and redirects are cheap. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete let it be covered in the article about the album the song is on. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure that redirecting would contradict this rationale. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This song appears to pass GNG have been documented in reliable sources, [42]

Strong, Martin C. (2004). The Great Rock Discography (7th ed.). Edinburgh: Canongate Books. p. 1177. ISBN 1-84195-551-5.

Mabbett, Andy (1995). The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd. London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-4301-X.

Manning, Toby (2006). "The Albums". The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (1st ed.). London: Rough Guides. p. 164. ISBN 1-84353-575-0. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and cited from all three of those book sources, and they are trivial passing mentions in the context of Obscured By Clouds. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts. If, as the nominator stated "there are good sources" I could be open to changing to "keep," but someone would have to do the research. Right now there are 2 sources used for this song in the Obscured by Clouds article, neither of which is within an album review, but neither of which seems to be particularly substantive - Povey does have a short paragraph on the song, for which I can give a little credit towards notability but not much, and I don't know what is in the Mabbett source but unless there is more than what is referenced in the Obscured by Clouds article that moves the needle even less. As to the sources listed by Valoem, I unfortunately misplaced my copy of this Mabbett book but if I recall correctly it had a short paragraph on most songs, for which I can provide some credit towards GNG (regardless of the form, it is certainly not an album review) but again not much. Strong rarely has more than a sentence on album tracks so unless someone has evidence to the contrary it does not help towards meeting GNG. And I doubt the Rough Guide has much more - Mannings "Rough Guide to Pink Floyd" has a sentence that refers to the song. Given how much has been written on Pink Floyd's music I can't deny the possibility that this songs meets GNG, but there needs to be more evidence.Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in regards to the three above sources, Stay is mentioned more than once in the rough guide. I've currently requested this book to check if anymore information can be extracted. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have this book, and I'll check it later tonight when I get home. I see we've gone past the token relist day/time for another 7-day sweep, but I'd be grateful if this can stay open until the end of the day (UK time). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly forgot - there's nearly 3/4 of a page on this song (page 197) in the Rough Guide. It's part of the section called "Floyd's Finest 50" and is ranked at #25, which is in chronological order of release. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly strengthens the notability argument, although I think it still could use another substantial source to get over the bar. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts. It's a valid redirect, even if consensus is that it doesn't meet our notability criteria. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. This article has been considered notable enough for an article for 11 years, notability which has not changed merely because of the passage of time. There are numerous books, magazine articles, newspaper reports discussing this song. It is victim of three things: the title is a common word, making online search difficult; many sources were published in the 70s, and thus not readily available online; those proposing deletion are disregarding physical books made of paper (such as those cited in the article). Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There wasn't a consensus 11 years ago that the song was notable. The previous Afd was closed as unnecessary because a merge to the album was proposed and could be done without an Afd discussion. Meanwhile notability guidance for songs has been revised and separated from singles and albums. Nothing wrong with taking another look today. Gab4gab (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is the weakest possible response to my argument because it attacks a single phrase and ignores the substance. Read it this way:

Notability is not temporary. Notability has not changed merely because of the passage of time. There are numerous books, magazine articles, newspaper reports discussing this song. It is victim of three things: the title is a common word, making online search difficult; many sources were published in the 70s, and thus not readily available online; those proposing deletion are disregarding physical books made of paper (such as those cited in the article).

It also misses the point because I didn't mention the previous AfD, which was only 8 years ago. I was referring to the history of the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you were just saying it was considered notable because it hadn't been deleted for 11 years. I thought you were referring to a previous consensus discussion where it's notability was considered. My mistake. Gab4gab (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a victim of two things 1) not saying anything another article already does and 2) not being an appropriate search term for a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. It's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, not independently notable. I agree that it is not an especially likely search term, and would normally allow the disambiguation page to take the traffic, but the above convinced me at least some people (the commenters above) might type the whole thing. --Bejnar (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs #7 and #8 in the "Analysis" section provide information that is not in the album article and would be WP:UNDUE if it were merged there. SpinningSpark 14:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This song was released in the USA as a single ("B" side of Free Four). It was already mentioned in the lead, I have added as a section in the article. This adds to notability, and was denied in the original post. I'm not sure of the consensus on "B" sides, but to me there is little difference between "A" and "B" on vinyl. However, I acknowledge that it was not available on a single in other markets. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - let's try to reach a consensus with this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Joshi (healer)

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

This healer fails the notability guidelines for biographies, as no sources were found. The notability tag was recently removed without explanation, and I have restored it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A promotional article created by a blocked user and subsequently edited by IPs (including a fake notice on the Talk page proclaiming a Keep conclusion to this AfD). The sources provided are postings/advertorials which come complete with the subject's contact details to arrange a consultation session. My searches are not finding better. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the Hindu and DNA are notable periodicals, the two articles cited (dated 2000 and 2014) appear to be advertorials. Kannadigaworld is not a reliable source.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindu article is clearly not an ad. One may dislike its contents, but this is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It concludes with "He visits Belgaum for two days a month (2491, Income Tax Colony, Mahantesh Nagar, Belgaum. ph.No.454989.)"; provision of such contact information usually occurs only in advertorial items, i.e. items seeking to obtain business for rather than provide disinterested information about a subject. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"usually occurs only in advertorial items"? Really? Who says that? What credibility does your statement have? Are you a reliable source while the Hindu is not? 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent advertorials as sources supporting quackery. Fails WP:GNG. Jschnur (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find it a little odd that this was even relisted---the consensus was clear in the first few days DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Bangladesh Air Force

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find context, references. Seemed like an individual opinion page in current form. Devopam (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comment. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force as per the first AfD in Jan 2016 & protect from recreation, to avoid future deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's completely unreferenced. Merging the content into Forces_Goal_2030 manually is an option (if properly referenced). I don't think we need to save the history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't argue with a redirect, except for the propensity for recreation, and ignoring the consensus of AfD. Editors could be encouraged to expand the existing section in the target article with updated info. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Ajf773; further as noted, does not have proper citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or may be merged with Bangladesh Air Force after suitable modification in the content. --Bhadani (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jim. If any detail is worth keeping (my opinion is there is too much) put it there. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Bangladesh Air Force Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force per K.e.coffman. This is a valid search term, and we should take them to the Bangladeshi military's plans for the future of the Air Force. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect on the condition that it be full protected. The main argument against redirect is that its so easy to recreate. This is a solution that has been used during at least one AfD I have participated in before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick cheese). I think it a good solution to this case as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom, per above. Subject and context doesn't warrant WP:SPLIT, and can be sufficiently covered within the scope of Bangladesh_Air_Force. I also think, salting and protecting is a good idea; if in any distant future (cannot foresee happening), splitting seems necessary, an AfC should be used. --nafSadh did say 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. No redirect as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, it is not a valid search term. Any extant plans covered in significant detail in reliable sources can be summarized in a single short section of Bangladesh_Air_Force. --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has radically changed since being nominated for deletion and is now looking like the general layout of, for instance, Future of the Royal Navy. I can't see the problem with the existence of the article per se, we have many Future of the <foo> articles. There may possibly be referencing problems (I haven't checked carefully) but the very first reference is to Jane's website. Jane's is the go to source for military matters, is impeccably reliable, and coverage there strongly indicates a notable topic. Anything problematic should be cleaned up. The nuclear option of delete is unnecessary hear. SpinningSpark 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging top, active, registered contributors to the two proposed merge/redirect targets (Bangladesh Air Force or Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force) for their subject expertise. Attention collaborators (AzfarShams—FOX 52—ScrapIronIV—SRS 00—Thomas.W) --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced fancruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, and mere speculations about what might happen in the future does not belong here. Articles/lists of this kind are also almost impossible to keep encyclopaedic and focussed, since they attract fanboys trying to prove that their country is better than everybody else's country, by inflating numbers and adding ever wilder speculations about what the future might bring. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:CBALL - Consensus is pretty much unanimous, delete - what more needs to be said FOX 52 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL It is speculative cruft, and wishful thinking. Scr★pIron^IV 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A total fanboy article. Even the references provided there has no match with what the article says. SRS 00^t@lk, 18:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Wikipedia

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

Orphaned; notability unclear. No sources found. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think a Jamaican wikipedia exists? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamaican Patois Wikipedia. Yes there is a wikipedia [43] but not under the name Jamaican Wikipedia Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Ajf773, although I'd question the notability of the Jamaican Creole Wikipedia itself - there are plenty of non-English Wikipedias, and this particular one doesn't seem to have any coverage at all beyond the bald fact of its existence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Comatmebro, Ajf773, and BigHaz: Also nominated the other article for deletion. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with the re-direct (for now) but should Jamaican Patois Wikipedia be deleted as part its own AfD debate, this one should be as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that any plausible redirect has been deleted (and rightly so, as there were notability issues), there's no clear option other than a deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias, which has come content about Jamaican Wikipedia; a functional redirect per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias, which is already the target of several similar redirects[44]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per Ajf773 and others. --Lockley (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver York

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

Low-level amateur driver who fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:BIO and WP:NMOTORSPORT. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON at least. Clearly fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, but also a lack of coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Herb grinder. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weed grinder

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

This article should be deleted as the subject of the article is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Herb grinder. I'd say merge and redirect, but the article creator has already put all relevant (and some dubious) information in both articles. LadyofShalott 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Herb grinder. Same reasons as given by LadyofShalott. The material is completely duplicative but the search term is plausible and a redirect is cheap. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Calderón

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've boldly redirected the title to Ludus#Discography since it's a valid search term. The article's history remains deleted, but I can restore it if anyone would like. Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riding the Rag

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Found

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

Removed prod. PROD reasoning was: "Fails WP:GNG, no Google News hits, only Google hits are not reliable sources.", which still applies. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable film without reliable secondary coverage. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aleks Syntek#Discography. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2009

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage per WP:ALBUM. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look into this compilation album later, but we might also want to look at the rest of the albums by this subject as they are all lacking sources and we could likely include several other works here at the same time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aleks Syntek § Discography. Finding very little source coverage, but a redirect is aligned with WP:ATD-R, as this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean chamber

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

Non-notable newspaper with zero references. I did a quick Google search to see what coverage, if any, the subject had, and wasn't able to find any to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Ukrainian-language newspaper of Crimea. Its archive placed on Wikimedia Commons. On Google search result gives a transliteration Krymska svitlytsia --Jbuket (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching the proper terms makes a great deal of difference. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for better results that demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given lack of input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Your Life (The Adicts album)

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

Article that simply states the existence of a non-charting compilation album. It fails GNG entirely since a search brings up no significant coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given lack of input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Tacloban

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

Fails WP:GNG. With 70 stores and an area less than 40,000m3 it has all the hallmarks of a non-notable shopping mall Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two relistings. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Up (TV series)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, also no sources can be found. QianCheng_虔诚 08:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:NFILM doesn't apply to television, so nomination is invalid. Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources can probably found by searching in Chinese: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaki Kitai

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

Fails WP:NFILM, no reliable sources about the movie independently can be found. The article is also fails WP:NEUTRAL per the lead section. QianCheng_虔诚 08:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Slim Collin

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

Non notable producer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest (band)

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

Don't think that there is anything here to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent WP:RS, Not to be confused with the band Conquest from St. Louis, Mo. --Bejnar (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AXN (India). (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AXN Pakistan

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

Non notable TV channel, Nothing shows up in English[45] or Urdu[46], Fails WP:TV and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AXN (India) Obvious hoax is obvious; no Pakistan dropdown on network's schedule menu, along with the usual hoaxer attempts to convince us this network sees the light of day in Iran and Afghanistan, two countries that would easily take umbrage with this network's content. I don't doubt they take the Indian version though (though edited to meet PK's PEMRA content standards). Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - It's not obvious to those outside of Pakistan (IE me!) and at first glance (without clicking anything) the web results indicates it exists, That aside if this is indeed a hoax then there's no point redirecting ?..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally all international networks use India as their hub for the subcontinental countries; this is no exception. Usually Pakistan's networks either originate from India or are limited to Pakistan proper and originate from Karachi per that country's regulators; I've had to keep hoaxers from turning many of these articles into messes like this. AXN India does mention the Pakistani feed, thus a delete-and-redirect would be appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right thanks, Having come across this I believe locals are confusing this channel with AXN India which is what you were hinting at, In that case I have no issues with deleting and redirecting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Pro Wrestling

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, relies on dubious (and primary) sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Receives regular coverage from Wrestling Observer Newsletter and other WP:PW/RS sources.[47]LM2000 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Kapoor

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

Non-notable person. Author of a single book published by vanity press Leadstart Publishing, and of a couple of poems and essays on various online venues. This autobiography makes no specific claims of notability other than having published a book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks necessary independent coverage by reliable sources. Best found are some interviews. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Gab4gab (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find substantive, independent coverage in reliable sources. Username also suggests promotional intent, and the article shows signs of this, though it is not egregious. Vanamonde (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to I Should Have Never Gone Ziplining. So Why 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zazarino

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

fails NACTOR and GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Should Have Never Gone Ziplining. That appears to be the single claim to fame. --Lockley (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus suggests that the content as it stands doesn't appear to support a proper article or the topic in consideration and this article should be deleted. A better structured article may be created later, possibly one on the law itself. —SpacemanSpiff 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle beacon lights in India

AfDs for this article:

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

i don't think that an article just on the use of beacons in india is really notable. maybe redirect to the law that was passed to ban them, but i think that is unlikely as well -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agrees with nominator, not notable topic, too niche. Information should be merged or deleted. 05:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Emergency vehicle lighting, which has sections for such lights by country. bd2412 T 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on TNT grounds. In a country of more than one billion people, federal law that affects both state-owned vehicles and private vehicles is almost guaranteed to be notable (I won't say exceptions can't exist, but such a thing is definitely not a niche topic), but this isn't an article. It's just a list of affected people and their cars. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 08:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack! Pro Wrestling

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, lack of GNG sources and the article reads like an ad. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Receives pretty regular coverage from Wrestling Observer Newsletter and others listed at WP:PW/RS.[48].LM2000 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pete Dunne is the current WWE UK Champion; how is his UK promotion "non-notable"?--CheShA (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid keep argument. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. The promotion is not notable just because its owner is notable. It has to be notable in its own right by having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 21:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Wrestling: EVE

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion. Lack of GNG as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following articles: Kerrang Magazine [49]. Metro Newspaper [50]. Fighting Spirit Magazine [51]. Hackney Post [52]. Power Slam Magazine [53]. Plus a brief mention in Sisterhood of the Squared Circle: The History and Rise of Women’s Wrestling a book by ECW Press. Coverage from 2012 to present. Nikki♥311 04:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Nikki's findings.LM2000 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Keating

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

Can't find WP:SIGCOV of this actress using a Google Search. On the news section, searching her name with quotation marks yields 8 results, none of which seem to be about her. Non-notable. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only two notable main roles: Clare in Game On, and Brenda Corrigan in The Peter Principle. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from Clare in Game On, and Brenda Corrigan in The Peter Principle. Appeared also on TV in some major shows, including Birds of a Feather, Prime Suspect and Drop the Dead Donkey - Had quite a few roles looking at her IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0444151/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those other roles are guest or minor roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in RSes found. Fails WP:GNG. Has lots of credits but most of her roles are guest appearances or minor characters. Fails WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think these roles are enough for WP:ENT, and I do not see other evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Romanian diaspora. So Why 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians in the Netherlands

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand: Stats show there's a notable increase in Romanians living in the Netherlands, and it's certainly notable. Also, we have similar articles for different nationalities in the same country (Portuguese in the Netherlands, Filipinos in the Netherlands, Greeks in the Netherlands) Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- May I be so bold as to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? When there's substantial sourced content to be had, it would be different, but the situation is as it is. May I also remark upon the fact that "Portuguese in the Netherlands" is lacking sources for the most basic of claims? Feel free to add some (sourced) content, though. I may cause me to change my mind. Kleuske (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the most basic of claims, Kleuske, for the Portuguese in the Netherlands article. They point to the Dutch Statistics Department page that shows the population numbers. The Filipino in the Netherlands article is well sourced, from a skim-through of the page. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not mention the article on Filippinos, since it's quite a decent article. If this article were anything close to that, I would not have nominated. The one claim in the Portugese article ("20.000 people claim Portuguese descent") is unsourced and adorned with a {{cn}}-tag. But let's discuss this article instead of the ones I did not nominate. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The CN tag was misplaced. The figure was sourced in the infobox. Linked to this page ([54]). Also, I have added more information to the page on Romanians in the Netherlands. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It isn't. There's a substantial difference between "claiming to be of Portuguese descent" and "being a Portugese national". Statline only references the latter. Kleuske (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was expanded a bit after being nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Romanian diaspora, where the only salient statistic, the number of Romanians in the Netherlands, can be found. (Note that the number differs significantly between these two articles.) As for the right to work, that's routine coverage of something that happened across the EU, and is covered at 2007 enlargement of the European Union, in the "work restrictions" section. I looked around for more material in Romanian, but could find nothing significant. (I did turn up a couple of organizations for Romanians in the Netherlands, but those aren't independent sources). - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Romanian diaspora. Insufficient substance for a standalone article. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 1 nomination for deletion and 1 'keep' = no consensus, and at 19 days this AfD has been open for long enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amity Innovation Incubator

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

The article is factually incorrect and misleading. It claims that it is a Government Organisation but I could not find a single source which states that it is a Government of India undertaking, at best it is a NGO supported by a some kind of government initiative. It is quite clear that this organisation is a branch of Amity University , which is a private university and not a government of India undertaking, the same can be confirmed from here 1 . Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Razer^{Text me} 08:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rahuloof, I have just rechecked the resources and find that it is supported by a fund from Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India but established by Amity University which is private sector University. You are right as this information was misleading. I have changed it and formated according to this resource. --J.Clark (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CoSpaces

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haved made some changes to the article, hoping it will match the guidelines. Please update me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas-pluralvonglas (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing enough substantive coverage here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Togolese people in the Netherlands

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands. bd2412 T 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusians in the Netherlands

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge - as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians in the Netherlands

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians in the Netherlands

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in the Netherlands

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Chaubey

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

Non-notable casting director fails to pass our general notability guideline. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only significant coverage about them is a Tellychakkar.com article whose reliability hasn't been established. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attia Sharara

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

Found no reliable sources for this person tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those references definitely need sorting out. A quick Googling indicates that the subject seems legit and maybe just notable enough for a page -- but the original editor is blocked and has had multiple articles deleted, redirected, and a lot of mischief. --Lockley (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Games of the Small States of Europe

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:CRYSTAL as it is an article about a future event that cannot be verified using a reliable and independent source. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source is not reliable, and violates CRYSTAL anyway. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, to wit, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Games of the Small States of Europe has several sources, including two in Montenegrin (perfectly fine, as English is not required for reliability of sources) and This source which is a perfectly reliable English source. The games are going to take place, and the site has been announced, this is no different from upcoming Olympics, etc. --Jayron 32 13:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL #1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As Jayron points out, this is the case. A short Google News search finds the source Jayron points out and more, so it seems WP:BEFORE was violated. Regards So Why 15:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article includes citation from Times of Malta, which is an independent source. As such, this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, contrary to nom's assertions. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the GSSE main page and keep the links for this article. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Asturkian (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Host is known already, and participating nations are known. Not a crystall ball. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Montenegro has already presented itself on the current GSSE. Source. It seems that dates are wrong thou. Also, it is first next GSSE, so it should not be treated as Crystal. Edit: Montenegrin Olympic Committee has also announced on its official website this event (in Montenegrin) here. And the official website is up and running and can be seen here. It reinstates that it is not Crystal. Requiem mn. (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As is argued well by several users above, it seems that there is enough known about the event and enough certainty that it will happen that I do not think this violates WP:CRYSTAL Dunarc (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upcoming edition that already have host, dates and etc. selected. Bearas (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued above; see also WP:HAMMER. It's going to take place in two years. If it were five or six years in the future, I would go against it. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen McPolin

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

Notability. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see at least half a dozen references in Google Books, which all seem to be a paragraph or more. Unfortunately they are all in snippet view. St Anselm (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article reveals nothing exceptional in his career. This means the question is whether ran Apostolic Prefect is a jigh enough post to be notable without more. Not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As Apostolic Prefect, he was the head of a diocese which would later be headed by an archbishop, and is thus listed with the bishops on the diocese web page [55]. He has some coverage, as StAnselm points out, in English language religious literature. I found and added info from two webpages with brief profiles about him in Korean (as "임 오웬"), but I'm not sure this is the best transliteration of his name and wonder if more information could be found about him in that language. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - held a then minor office; nothing to indicate notabilty. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two relistings. (non-admin closure) f e minist 00:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Heat

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

Marginal example of a not-yet-notable composer/producer; assertions and claimsseem to be in conflict with WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS, since he does not appear to be notable in his own right Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSICBIO #8 says: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.". "Platinum selling" has also been sourced. I have now sourced three grammy noms. In addition, while this is a relatively new producer, I think there is more than enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG, albiet not as much detailed coverage as i would like. But there is some. I have added several citatiosn and a critical response section to the article. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in the music field WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS does not seem to be fully applied, since WP:MUSICBIO #6 also says: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." That is pretty much pure inherited notability, in a guideline. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - DES: do the Grammy databases list Heat as the nominee; or did he just work on an album that was nominated? I've noticed a tendency to treat anybody who ever touched a project, from the singer to the session musicians to the producer(s) to the sound engineer, as "Grammy-nominated" if the project gets a nomination (it seems to be worse in music than anywhere else). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a reasonable question, and I am not entirely sure of the answer. I can say that his name was included in the track list of a nominated album, and that a source (now cited in the article) says that he "received three grammy noms for his work" on the album. That is a bit more than being the sound engineer. I still maintain that even without the award nom, this passes the GNG, although I would prefer a few better sources to the more numerous but less detailed ones that I have found so far.DES ^(talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only Kanye is named on the Grammy page listing the nomination for The Life of Pablo. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because he is "an extra". But, I think it needs mentioned - as more and more entities move all content to the internet (including legitimate sources that allow for paid ads that look like articles), that WP really needs to step their game up with what does and does not qualify. This subject may meet the requirements simply based on the fact that there are enough "sources" that mention his name. Kellymoat (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - mere mentions do not qualify a subject; sources must contain substantial discussion of the subject, not merely mention them in a table or list, or contain a single sentence that calls out their name. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale McDowell

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

Local politician for a minor party in Scotland. I can't find coverage in reliable sources that would be sufficiently detailed to warrant an article. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. Pichpich (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — and at the local council level, even winning the election wouldn't have gotten him an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. For someone like this, the only way to get him into Wikipedia would be to show that he would already have qualified for an article on some other grounds independent of being a council election candidate, but nothing here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL Coderzombie (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ford (blogger)

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

Article about apparently non-notable subject, relying mainly on the use of self-published sources Avaya1 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Luke Ford has been well known both in the porn world and in American Orthodox Jewish circles. I'm a little puzzled by the stated grounds for this AfD, given that the article already cites substantial coverage about Ford in Wired[56][57], the Los Angeles Daily News[58], and Salon[59]. Quick searches also find a cover story [60][61] and other coverage about him in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [62], and an unflattering portrayal in The New York Times[63]. There are passages in this article that would benefit from editorial attention, but his notability is evident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit a pile on, based on User:Arxiloxos. I have looked at the article but not checked the references myself. Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As others have noted, the article cites a wide variety of reliable sources that establish notability and a Google search shows many more. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided, meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets GNG requirements despite deficiencies in article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Richard B. Spencer. There was no support for the retention of the article on the website, however there was no objection to the idea of redirecting to Richard Spencer's biography. Merging from the history of the redirect to Spencer's article or anywhere else is at individual editorial discretion. The article for the website should not be recreated without some form of third-party review to make sure that all concerns in this discussion are addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Right

AfDs for this article:

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

This page for the website "alternativeright.com" should be deleted because the website is not notable enough to warrant its own article. The sources on the page are either leftwing blogs (e.g. DailyKos) or organizations that identify hate groups (e.g. ADL, SPLC). These sources only mention the website in brief blog posts or in off-hand remarks. There is no in-depth report about the website in a major news outlet, such as NY Times, WashPost or the Wall Street Journal. The website is rarely, if ever, brought up in popular or political discourse. There are 17 sources in the article and I count 5 mentions in non-RS sources[64][65][66][67][68], 4 brief mentions of the website in an RS but in the context of Richard Spencer[69][70][71][72], 1 brief mention of the website in an RS but in the context of the alt-right movement as a whole[73], 5 RS which do not explicitly mention the website at all[74][75][76][77][78], 1 off-hand mention of the website[79] in an RS, 1 link to the website itself[80]. The website therefore gets little, if any, coverage in reliable sources beyond off-hand remarks in the context of Spencer or the alt-right movement. If there is any content here worth keeping, it should just be merged with Spencer's Wikipedia article or the Wikipedia article for the alt-right movement. Just as InfoWars.com (a website that gets substantially more coverage in reliable sources) doesn't merit a Wikipedia article, neither does this far less notable website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [81] and [82] are both non-trivial coverage of the website (and not just Spencer) in my opinion, but are of the website's first incarnation from 2010-2014. I see no coverage of the current version. I agree with the nom that most of the references listed do not suggest notability, several (particularly the DKos diary) should be removed from the article if it is kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any well-sourced content into the Richard B. Spencer page. This website is not notable enough to warrant its own article. From WP:WEBSITE: "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance." I don't see how its notable, and "historical significance"? Not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard B. Spencer. Artw (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non notable website. Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard B. Spencer or Merge with same.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.voanews.com/a/india-says-two-soldiers-killed-mutilated-pakistan-forces-kashmir/3832935.html

[1] ttp://www.voanews.com/a/india-says-two-soldiers-killed-mutilated-pakistan-forces-kashmir/3832935.html

[1]

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen McPolin}}<!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holocaust in curricula}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meister Cook}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meister Cook}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Heat}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale McDowell}}