Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 29: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:24, 29 October 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 October	30 October >

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 delete. Sandstein 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asma Rahim

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

Does not pass WP:PROF not notable doctor Chantrises (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely route to a pass of WP:PROF appears to be criterion 4. Can anyone find evidence that her textbook is widely used in Indian universities? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong her book is not popular and not used in any University checked it she fails PROF 4 her book was only published this year 2017 Principles and Practices of Community Medicine.It was earlier published in 2008 but failed .She has written only 1 book.Chantrises (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that her textbook has been widely used, cited or reviewed. No other indications that the subject passes WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mathur

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

Doesn't seem like a very substantial commission and the only refs support that this person is appointed head of it. Doesn't rise to WP:BIO notability. DMacks (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appointed civil servants don't get an automatic notability pass just for existing, but "he exists" is all that this article actually shows or sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and properly source something much more substantial about him than this, but this as written just isn't even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a run of the mill nominated position holder, he in an officer of the Indian Administrative Service and was the Defence Secretary (India) and Chief Secretary (India) in Tripura. I've sorta expanded the article to include some of this info. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpacemanSpiff's improvements. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Defence secretary, enough said, notability satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep secDef of a major state.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired, endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kim Booster

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

Non-notable actor/comedian/writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial secondary support. Esquire article is a brief paragraph and the other references are WP:PRIMARY. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not yet meet our notability requirements for actors/comedians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tangible user interface. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physical icon

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

Patent that does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable on its own. Wumbolo (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Merge to tangible user interface. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I added six sources from good publicaitons. This is a widely cited term in computer science.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge with tangible user interface, as that article covers much of the same ground.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The short four-sentence article is probably not needed as a stand alone, but could be merged into the Tangible user interface article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: this basic concept has been shown many times, for instance in the MS Surface, but it was not referred to as such. It appears this is simply the name used to refer to the concept in one specific instance, so merging it to an article on tangible or metalDesk seems like the right solution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 31 October 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Act III Communications

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

Delete References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could stand some attentive editing, but the company is a highly entertainment/media entity whose activities are covered extensively in reliable sources. Passes GNG and NCORP with ease. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the films that were produced by Act III Communications received some Academy Award nominations in some of the categories. One of the films, Stand by Me received a Golden Globe nomination for best Motion Picture Drama. This is why we should keep it. Evil Idiot 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Olita

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

Heavily promoted article, that fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMO and WP:FILMMAKER. The article notability tag was removed by SPA account. The COI tag was removed by user User talk:ExploreWiki, who was indefo blocked, without the COI being addressed. The refs are a mix of blog and youtube. Lots of refs are dud. At the last Afd, which was borderline keep, one or two insta SPA accounts were created and came into vote, which I missed. Requesting delete for continual abuse of WP Terms of Use.scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the whole article has been created by a whole bunch of SPA accounts. scope_creep (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- despite the over-abundance of refs, this fails WP:CREATIVE. The documentaries appear to be short films; sourcing includes interviews, WP:SPIP coverage and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. On top of this, the article is mostly spam and does not add value to the project; such content is explicitely excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth looking to see how it has been built up, all by SPA accounts. it starts with SPA User talk:Amliethomas who comes in at 9:40 and by 14:15 there is a 12k article. 112.196.70.10 adds another 4k. 110.225.194.18 comes in and adds 8bytes. 116.74.57.6 comes in changes 1 character. 122.173.132.245 adds 7 bytes. 103.41.38.183 takes 7 away. And then User:ExploreWiki, who now blocked indefinently, does a copyedit. Then spa 184.164.147.3 removes several characters. All the while, when normal WP editors are interleaving work between the SPA accounts. I think it is a Paid for article. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a beginner director but getting more media attention lately specifically after the release of his MUXES doc that resonated with the LGBT festivals and community [1] 142.129.124.207

Comment Brand new SPA IP account just created to come in and vote. scope_creep (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reference is a listing for the festival, and as such is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why a film listing for arguably the most important LGBT festival in the US is not notable. Just googled the doc and found it was awarded at SF SHORTS as well <ref>http://sfshorts.com/awards/2017_films.html</ref> Also, I did not create any new account, I just use my IP as a contributor

Notability is not inherited, i.e. WP:INHERITED. It is merely a film listing and is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 scope_creep (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tending towards delete, but not very trafficked. Giving it a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scope_creep, I just reviewed Wikipedia policy you suggested me and this is pure promotional article. My vote is for deletion asap. EShami (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bandari (AVC)

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

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

Not finding any significant coverage for this band. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: despite being Swiss, the band is virtually unknown outside of China and Taiwan, and therefore any potential sources are almost certainly going to be in Chinese – there's no detailed information about them in English, or any other European language, by the looks of it. The article used to have one reference from a Chinese newspaper [2] but the link is now dead. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They exist, but I can find no indication they pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Note: if deleted, there's at least one redirect (Wonderland (Bandari album) which should also be deleted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are automatically deleted when a discussion is closed as delete, and do not need to be mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the article has obvious problems and no references. A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC) --> Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia. Thus deleting this article is valid. Bandari disappears from the world except 2 countries, where it is even mistakenly considered as a domestic band O_o 31.61.114.124 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)W4rb1rd[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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fee

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

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is enough on the web to improve the article, he seems to be well known in the comic world, it requires improvement not deleting. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! But we need to see references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and to lend weight to your !vote. If you find a couple, please post them here. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates he is a notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing? Directing the blockbuster 2017 Cars 3 (which received significant coverage for the director) isn't notable? Subject is gaining notability status alone for going from an animator to a feature-film director. Further down this list you'll find a musician Cynthia Crane who seems to be "notable" for only simple WP:GNG and media mentions for night club reviews. WP is going to delete this and keep that? Come on. Where is the continuity of requirement guidelines? Maineartists (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he apparently directed a film that made $378.9m dollars. I think that makes him a notable filmmaker. I've added two new sources. Blythwood (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Collider.com reference is essentially a transcript of an interview and fails as a PRIMARY source. Similarly, the slashfilm.com reference is an interview and fails as a PRIMARY source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. An interview by a reputable news organisation shows that the person is considered of interest to their readership. He clearly meets sections 3 and 4 of WP:ARTIST: he's the director of a significant work which has been widely reviewed. Blythwood (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to references not being PRIMARY sources: WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Maineartists (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Director of Pixar's Cars 3. We're done. Carrite (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RBMedia

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

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references establish notability and pass WP:GNG. Also world's largest audiobook publishing company. -- GreenC 19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RBMedia is an umbrella company that formed in 2017 through the acquisition of other independent companies. Some of those companies were notable and others not. The companies are now imprints or brands of RBMedia, it's all one company. So there has to be an umbrella article about the company that owns brands like Recorded Books and Tantor Media - but also an article to discuss brands that are not (yet) notable like Audiobooks.com and HighBridge. Thus an article on RBMedia serves this purpose. It's theoretically possible to merge Recorded Books and Tantor Media into RBMedia but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. These companies are of historical interest as discussed in the history section of audiobooks they were pioneering companies in the audiobook industry. -- GreenC 19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have sufficient significance and coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep claims like "It claims to be the largest audiobook publisher in the world." are almost certainly puffery. However, if multiple of its imprints/acquired companies/merged companies are notable, this entity probably is as well. The references are largely of corporate acquisitions and not of any actual business. If a merge with Recorded Books is possible, that would be preferred. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Waterland

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

Fails GNG, PROMO. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have never been to this park. I am doing this because I wanted to help clear some requested articles from the backlog. I checked the history of "Requested Articles" and found this to be on the page for years. I am a dedicated member of WP:APARKS and created this to help expand the growing theme park section of wikipedia. I am dedicated to clearing backlogs and making the encyclopedia a better place. I am not promoting this location in anyway, If I am, I will change the language. I think if dedicated editors can get to this article, it could make a fine addition to the encyclopedia. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a lot of independent coverage found ([3], [4], [5]). Is this a significant enough attraction to be included here? --Michig (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't get that impression. Sorry I didn't elaborate further in the nom, I was on the fence on whether this should be a prod, it seemed pretty routinely not notable. South Nashua (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 29 October 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 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture Expo

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

No indication of passing WP:NEVENTS Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. All fifteen sources are reliable and pertain to the article and its contents. Most of the sources are from radio station and newspaper websites, including the Boston Globe.^[1] I have discovered multiple comic book convention Wikipedia articles that only have five or less sources, and do not meet the required guidelines for notability, yet they are still live on Wikipedia. A handful of these comic book conventions are defunct small-town conventions with no known celebrities as guests. The Pop Culture Expos are still active, every celebrity guest is a household name, the events are mentioned in countless articles on the internet, and are run by celebrity, Gary Sohmers. The March 2017 show was also the last public appearance made by Batman (TV series) actor, Adam West before he died in June 2017.^[2]^[3]^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollhippie (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Rocknrollhippie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

^ "Adam West: still Batman after all these years". Boston Globe. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
^ "Comic Con organizer is glad he brought TV's Adam West to Hanover". Enterprise News. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
^ "Comic Con draws thousands of fans to Hanover Mall". Patriot Ledger. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
^ "Southcoast Comic Con returns to Hanover Mall". Wicked Local Hanover. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

Delete -- promotionalism only and significant RS coverage not found. Sources are passing mentions, local sources not meeting WP:AUD and / or of WP:SPIP nature. Fail WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rooster Teeth#Gen:Lock. Moved out of user's draft space without permission; it's been copied back (and since there's really only one author no extra attribution is needed), so this can be converted to redirect. ansh 666 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gen:Lock

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

Too soon. This show may very well be notable in the future, but right now, all that exists the most basic of teasers -- there isn't even a release date yet. There are no reviews, only one or two "first look" articles -- I think this article needs to be deleted until the show has actually launched and has some significant coverage in reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I wasnt going to do this. I was waiting for the show to come out so i can put it in. Im sorry about this. This wont happen again. Crazybob2014 (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Crazybob2014: You still made another mistake. I reverted your edit because per WP:XFD and deletion processes you cannot blank or redirect page while its AfD hasn't been closed the same way you can't remove the AfD tag –Ammarpad (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG fail WP:NFO, not yet released and author has no objection it's clearly not notable, at least for now thus WP:TOOSOON. It may be notable in the future as OP said but not yet and we don't predict what the future holds and definitely Wikipedia doesn't either WP:FUTURE Ammarpad (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi İpekçi Park

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

This is a park, just a park, and one with no claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG. This article was created by blocked sock User:TheWindInTheTrees. The article was apparently saved from WP:G5 deletion by the contribution by User:CeeGee. However, this contribution was only sourced to Yelp which is not a reliable source. Both paragraphs have copyvio issues. Coupling this, and the lack of notability with WP:DENY makes a strong delete case. Just Chilling (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument is also up for deletion.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an ordinary park. The references don't do anything to show notability. The king of the sun (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked through some references to it, but it's almost universally about things that have happened in the park, rather than the park itself being notable for some reason. Passing references don't make for a good basis for an article here. A park can't gain notability via inheritance (see WP:NGEO#No inherited notability. The existing references on the article are to a dead website now available only through archive.org (and the original isn't much of a source anyway) and a Yelp review, which also isn't a reliable source. Nothing sustaining notability here in any respect. Sure, it exists, but nothing here suggests even an inkling of passing WP:NGEO. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles on parks like this for most major cities in North America and Northern Europe, goegraphical locations are usually notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search on Google Books [6] gets plenty of hits, some describing the physical park in some depth and some talking about what people do or have done there, or plan to do to it. Notability is nothing to do with the present state of the article or whether the park is unusual in some way. It is purely about on whether the park has been noted, and that is certainly the case here. My Turkish is a bit weak, but selective cut-and-paste of snippets from the search results into Google Translate yields the following:
- We read in the newspapers last week; Ankara Municipality decided to remove the Hittite Monument in Yenişehir and change the names of the Lausanne Field and the Abdi Ipekci Park. On this, journalists, the Prime Minister from the Presidential ...
- 5 June 1979 Abdi Ipekci Park, founded on the World Environment Day, is spread over an area of 60 000 m2 and has a 5-acre pool, fountains, amphitheater, children's garden and flower gardens. ...
- In Ankara Abdi Silk Park (Figure 22) and in the pools of the Sivas Government Square, the traditional fountain fountain form is used only as a decorative motif in some modern water architectural examples. Susuyanlar water ...
- Even if these lands were not in the hands of the municipality, they could not see the project, the people concerned, the superiors, the Abdi Silkist Park project. By making a generalization, for whatever reason, the protection of the soil that is in the hands of the Ankara Municipality ...
- With the transfer of the present place of the present, a green belt will be formed which is connected with the Abdi Ipekci Park and connected to the Kurtuluş Park. As a green field measure against Ankara air pollution, if the city is surrounded by a green belt, the air caused by the heat difference between the city and the city, ...
- The Headscarf Memorandum Anneleri Platform continues to expand the Protest of the Headscarf Legislative Clothes held in Ankara every Saturday at the Hacibayram Mosque and every Pa: zar Abdi Ipekci Park. ...
- On March 1, 1990, Saturday, the police radios in Ankara Abdi Silk Park were receiving more or less exciting speeches. Because Hacettepe Salim in the park could not perform his art with his unique taste. The name "Performance" ...
- 650 people stayed in the Abdi Silk Park for four nights. At the end of four days, the wait was decided to maintain groups of 100 people alternately. When Sener's 10 days are over, the earthquake victims are now with a group of 500 people ...
- A committee was set up in the municipality with contributions: "Volunteer Committee of Friends of Animals" The committee made its first performance in Abdi Ipekci Park on Saturday. The call of the committee is the result of the captains of the capital parked with cats and dogs ...
- Looking up from above, a ridiculous, meaningless crowd moves towards Abdi Ipekci Park. You're in that crowd. You had a protest telegraph from the Red Crescent Post. Students from other universities come together and press ...

It certainly seems to be an interesting place. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These certainly attest to the park existing, but from what I can tell none of them attest to the park being notable. These are passing mentions in text that otherwise isn't focused on the park. Sure, things happen in the park. That doesn't make it notable either, as WP:NGEO#No inherited notability notes "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." Has the park won an award of some kind? Apparently not. Is it the subject of significant coverage in multiple sources (WP:GNG #1), and not just trivial mentions as demonstrated above? Apparently not. Is it on some form of a national historic register? Apparently not. I'd be quite happy to shift my delete recommendation. However, though I thank you for finding these mentions, none of them rise to any sort of level that attests to the park itself being notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are just the 2-line snippets that Google displays in the list of search results. Several of these sources presumably go on to say a good deal more about the park, enough to establish general notability. For example, if you click on the second search result you get three snippets out of 9 pages that mention the park. Again, I don't speak Turkish, but the three that are shown seem to be discussing a plan to build a municipal palace in the park, describing the park, and describing how the park makes the city more livable. That is, they give in-depth coverage. This is no surprise. Any park in the downtown of a major city is likely to be well-discussed, e.g. Washington Square Park. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Washington Square Park is iconic as the references on that article can attest to. I don't think that we can use that park as a wide paint brush to presume that all city parks are notable. I could just as well cite Chelsea Park in NYC, which is hardly iconic (and we don't have an article on that park, and don't even mention it on List of New York City parks). As to the Turkish links; I agree the park is mentioned. But "presumably" isn't enough to go on. Failing translation, we don't know how its mentioned. 9 mentions in a book spanning 255 pages doesn't seem more than trivial mention to me. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three visible paragraphs devoted to the park count as in-depth. I assume there is much more in the hidden parts of the book and in the many other books in the search results. Check the street view of Abdi Ipekci Park. Washington Square Park is small and dull by comparison. Abdi Ipekci Park is newer, and I gather the decision to create it on valuable downtown land was the subject of much debate, as was selecting the design and artwork, clearing and construction. Then there were political debates about the name. And of course the sources discuss the use that has been made of it. Lots to write about, for someone who speaks Turkish. Let's try to avoid systemic bias. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Someone with far too much time on their hands just started an article on Chelsea Park in NYC (see above). It is far from iconic and seems very mundane compared to this one but, like this one, it has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A municipal park connected with an eponymous notable figure, featuring sculpture art of historical and political nature, and assertions of being the location of notable political activity. It needs work and expansion, and per Aymatth2 is extensively recognized in cursory searches, but I don't see any reason to delete on notability grounds. At bare minimum it can be merged with Abdi İpekçi until more substantive work is done. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a possible refund if future productions yield more substantial notability. bd2412 T 02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland Musical (1997)

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

Appears to be an adaptation for use in community theatre so no professional productions, and does not appear to have significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Depends on what constitutes "professional". 2008 production was staged by the Fort Collins Childrens' Theater, an organization employing paid professional actors (for evidence of production, see cached article in local Style mag [7] and also YouTube video of a "professionally done" production number from that production [8]), as was a 2011 production staged by EmilyAnn theater company of Wimberley, Texas, so "no professional productions" is a false statement. And a clearer definition of "significant coverage" is needed. Here is a link to old public notice of the EmilyAnn production: [9]. There are many more such notices on the web.Msirt (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Author has "paper trail" of 87 international licensees of the production.Msirt (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for context, User:Msirt states he is one of the authors of the work so has a WP:COI. Still don't think it's anywhere near WP standards for WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 25:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although there may be a WP:COI because I am a co-author, it should be noted that I did not create the page originally. It was posted unbeknownst to me by a participant in one of it's many productions. I discovered it quite by accident, but have taken on it's maintenance since then, since the original required corrections & syntax editing. Additional historical information and external links were added by me and I have continually monitored those links for viability.Msirt (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Small edit.Msirt (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I've struck the duplicate !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never produced in any notable, professional venues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Struck duplicate !vote info reposted as comment: "Author has "paper trail" of 87 international licensees of the production".Msirt (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Comment: (in answer to "delete" by John Pack Lambert) Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts of Fort Collins, CO, which served as the venue of the 2008 production would seem to be a professional venue [10].Msirt (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have struck this new duplicate "keep" !vote. Msirt: Your comment here still stands; no need to post it again. It's just that you're only allowed one bold "Keep" on a page like this. More than one, and the wiki-deletionists start crying "Off with his page!" -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Thank you Gpc62. Just learning the ropes here. Hadn't realized what !vote was and that "Keep" was one of themMsirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: "Off with his page!" Cute. Just got the joke. A little slow this morning.
- Comment: (to original critique by Boneymau) "Appears to be an adaptation for use in community theatre" assumes an intention of sole purpose, whereas the production as stated on the production website [11] is intended for both professional and community organizations. And certainly, the Disney stage version (which is noted under the Disney Franchise WP article [12]), plays for more "community organizations" than it does for "professional ones". In fact, it's not a stretch to imagine that distribution as Disney's commercial goal. As has been pointed out, I am co-author (and composer of the score) and I will testify personally that my first intention is for this to be produced professionally (as it has been on the occasions noted), since the music is sophisticated and is done more justice by professional artists.Msirt (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know if any of the productions count as "professional" by Wikipedia's standards, but this musical has been seeing productions for the past 20 years. To me that's enough to warrant keeping the page. The nominator's dismissive "seems to be an adaptation for use in community theaters" had me expecting to find that it was merely an adaptation of some other musical version of the book. No, it's an original adaptation (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) of the book. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not trying to out anyone, but this article is a very obvious case of COI, as it was written by a cast member and substantially contributed to by the coauthor/composer/lyricist. I'm not ready to cast a !vote yet, but that fact should be noted here. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Comment by Softlavender that author wrote the article is completely untrue. Please check the history. As stated above, it was posted unbeknownst to me by a participant in one of it's many productions. I discovered it quite by accident, but have taken on it's maintenance since then, since the original required corrections & syntax editing. Additional historical information and external links were added by me and I have continually monitored those links for viability. Here is the creation entry: (cur | prev) 14:55, 31 December 2014‎ Iloveyouallforevernowdie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,264 bytes) (+7,264)‎ . .Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creators are not notable, it has never had a production that received any national press, and never produced at a recognized regional theatre company. The sources are mostly very weak, including blogs. Certainly the cast list of the amateur cast of the "Kids on Stage" production in Staten Island, sponsored by the Parks Department, should be deleted. The co-author claims above that the EmilyAnn production was "professional", but it seems to be more like a summer camp program. The Fort Collins production was definitely community theatre -- the article cited above says that it is a "local adult theater group producing live theater for children ... [a] long-running volunteer group." Therefore, it appears that the adaptation has never been produced by a professional company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Re: "Creators are not notable". A Google of my name "Michael Sirotta", will show I have some notability in the New York theater scene as a theater musician/composer, having been composer in residence at La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club (La MaMa E.T.C.), and was Ellen Stewart's personal music director from 1998 to her death in 2011. (As an example, I am mentioned in a news clipping about her St. Patrick Cathedral funeral [13] where music I composed accompanied the ceremony). I also have a long history of collaboration with Elizabeth Swados, having been musical director and arranger for her "The Beautiful Lady" (winner of a 1985 Helen Hayes Award), as well with as many other of her creations. I was also a nominee for the New York 2005 "Innovative Theater Awards Outstanding Original Music" award [14] (Although the music to "Perseus" was a collaborative effort, as musical director, most of the composing fell on me). In a recent Theatermania.com review of a production of Pasolini's "Pylade" at La mama [15], I receive a strong compliment for my score for the production.Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The Cast of the "Kids on Stage" entry should not be deleted because it is historically the cast of the world premiere. Original creator of the page had listed the cast he/she was in as the original cast. I corrected that when I discovered the article.Msirt (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: EmilyAnn and FCCT may have volunteer administrations, but they do hire professional directors and performers to augment community participants. So it's a bit of a grey area of the level of "professionalism" these productions exhibit. And, as commented above, more "recognized" children's shows (such as Disney's) are mostly taken up by community enterprises, and yet they qualify for mention in WP.Msirt (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about a work that does not meet notability guidelines at all. A few minor local (non-professional) productions with even fewer very minor local reviews. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Local? There will be an upcoming production in Dubai in March, 2018. There have been 87 licenses thoughout the US and internationally. I'd call that more than "a few".Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, small, local, obscure, non-professional productions; with zero notable reviews. In fact, only one review all, from the Staten Island Advance in 1997. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There have been other "local" as you call it reviews, that given the longevity of this production, have lapsed online. However, none of this GNG complaint takes into account that the show has been seen by thousands of audience members over it's long tenure. And it especially prejudices against young people as counting in any test of notoriety.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I note you have not corrected your false assertion of my authorship of the article.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is your quote: "this article is a very obvious case of COI, as it was written by the coauthor/composer/lyricist". That's a pretty blanket statement of original authorship. The fact that the article was not created by me takes a lot of weight of a COI charge against me. The article as originally posted needed correcting and called for additional details, which I was in a position to do. If there's a COI in that, I'd say I had an interest but there's no conflict here on my part as I'm only arguing the merits.Msirt (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: [17]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Article written by" would be understood by most readers as "created by". An entirely misleading statement.Msirt (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: [18]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Although I contributed to it, because I neither "wrote it", nor "created it", there is no COI.Msirt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You substantially contributed to it, and it was created by a cast member, so it is entirely COI. I have amended my post above. Please learn to properly indent your posts to nest correctly (I have had to do that for you three times so far), and remember to sign your posts (I have now done that for you). Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Article was created by a cast member whose identity is unknown to me that I have absolutely no connection to, from some production removed from my locale. The originator of the article has no vested interest in the production other than having had such a positive experience in participating, felt it worth taking the trouble to create the WP article. Consequently, this "creator" is not arguing the case. This weakens the COI charge against the creator, I feel. But I, only having an interest making sure the information was correct, current, and robust in details of the material, see less of a COI issue in my contributions, edits and also arguing of the merits here. Thank you for the correction as noted. Advice taken on formatting.Msirt (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has led me to probe further into what counts as a promotion on WP. Consequently, I discovered that having an external link to the production website constitutes such an infraction. That link has now been removed. The article now simply states facts.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks national reviews, coverage is local only. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. I can only see the examples section expanded. Wumbolo (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For some reason, I got summoned here. Out of curiosity, I have some questions for you... To prove notability, do you need a citation from a source about TOTDs in general? Or will a citation from coverage of any TOTD feature do? If a TOTD feature is notable, then by extension, the concept itself is too, right? Like the relationship between Dear Abby and advice column? Just checking. The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's been a decade to provide some evidence that this is a noteworthy topic, and still a stubborn absence of sources. There's also no chance that this is actually the primary usage of the term; I'd estimate that well over 90% of uses of the phrase "tip of the day" relate to sports betting and don't actually mean "piece of advice given daily" but "piece of advice given on the day of the big game/horse race". ‑ Iridescent 22:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of progress in developing this article is not a valid reason to support deleting it. WP:NODEADLINES WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – using google, you can find tip of the day web features on many subjects. I even ran into one on meditation. The Transhumanist 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Tip of the day is a concept quite appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It is not just a word to be left for a dictionary, even if its meaning is self-explanatory. As a concept, it falls well within the acceptable limits defined in WP:NOT#DICDEF. i.e.Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc.. Normally, none of us would accept Wikipedia as a WP:RS, but in this instance it is quite acceptable to use it as a reliable source, so I have added a definition from its own Tip of the Day Project to the article. Iridescent is right to point out that little has been added to this page in over a decade, but that doesn't mean the topic fails WP:GNG. We don't need to support it by straying into WP:WAX, but it is worth pointing out there are actually parallels in many articles such as Online help; FAQ and Question. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as a concept. I removed the Wikipiedia TOTD stuff per WP:UNDUE. No independant sources discuss Wikipedia's TOTD, so we shouldn't bring it forward as an example of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable concept with multiple results in any search performaed. Article is fairly referenced. The Wikipedia TOD is clear undue problem but it has since been removed any other concern can be fixed too. Once subject is notable deletion is not solution because of fixable problem — Ammarpad (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Bulletin

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

Claims to be the largest/2nd largest/5th largest/first/most-read/fastest-growing (phew...) in various genres. Well, the website called HinduBulletin exists; but that's about it. No reliable (or even unreliable) sources exist to back the exceptional claims made. The source mentioned within the article is a dead link and almost seems a probably made-up title simply to clear the new page reviewers. Fails notability. Lourdes 05:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello The Bushranger, hope you're doing well. Might I request you to, rather than re-listing, consider closing this Afd as per the procedure listed under WP:SOFTDELETE? Warmly, Lourdes 04:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One relisting is customary for discussions that have had no or little comment, and two is usually done. Only at that point would a WP:SOFTDELETE be customary if there has yet to be any discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reply The Bushranger. I understand what you're saying. I believe that the February 2017 Rfc and the subsequent addition of the words, "If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD," have modified the procedure that administrators should use to close such Afds. In other words, it is an attempt to minimize the usage of even one re-list. Warmly, Lourdes 01:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried the one source offered and got The content you are looking for has been removed on legal advise. No other independent coverage has been identified. DailyVisitors.org indicates more modest traffic figures than the article: Hindubulletin.com has rank 594,727 in the world's top most visited websites ,with an estimated 283 daily visitors per day.: Noyster (talk), 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may have been a good PROD candidate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. The site has an alexa ranking of 1000000 worldwide so not "top 20000" (40000 in india though). Galobtter (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Affiliate Pro

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

Heavily promotional article lacks sufficient RS. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article consists of content appropriate to a sales site/brochure: describing the product features and available integrations. The references are poor, tending to "overview, pricing and features" listings. My searches are finding more of the same, with the paragraph on the Quality Unit firm and this product in this article on "The Next Web" perhaps the best. Not enough to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in my opinion. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G5 as of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge: CU confirmed UPE sock farm with likely connections to other SPIs detected by CU, and behavioral evidence by a clerk. I'll tag it as suck (note, I was the one who declined the original G11, so I exempt my contribution there from counting against G5.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivasri Kanchi

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

contested speedy. Fails WP:FILMMAKER only in 2016 did he make his debut film .Fails WP:NACTOR none of his roles are significant and could find anything to meet WP:GNG.Being the brother S.S. Raja Mouli does not make him notable and notability is not inherited. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not inherited and fails all mentioned criteria Spiderone 09:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article featuring family photo-album pictures, which generally indicates sourcing close to the subject. A Times of India source announces that the subject set up a Facebook account in January 2017, but that is hardly noteworthy in itself. Neither that nor other recent mentions such as this brief mention provide evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dulam Satyanarayana

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG .Subject is currently working on his debut feature fiction project and and has only done documentry film and a promotion film upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON not notable currently.A case of apparent paid editing as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon; fails GNG; COI issues Spiderone 22:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perharps nominator; Pharaoh of the Wizards, is angered at the alleged "Paid edting" perpetuated by article creator. Which really can be quite vexing, however, a WP:BEFORE shows that as per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:GOLDENRULE this article deserves a space on the encylopedia and to state otherwise is to deny that which is true.Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is a documentary film maker and is only making his debut film in 2018 and best is only upcoming cannot see how he is notable at this point. His debut feature fiction project based on Telugu writer Dr. Kesava Reddy's novel for which even the actors have not been selected as of now and it is still in the planning stage.His documentary Welcome to Telangana is a 3 minute film and so is Make Movies and Celebrate’ promo film another 3 minute film which are really ad films done for the government of Teleghana .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and suspicious creation. Only pages that are dedicated to him or his activities are social media sites that are not WP:RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination Kanatonian (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghraj Rajebhosle

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

Not much in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andexelt

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

declined proposed deltion. There's a lack of sources which discuss the album independently of the artist. Walokia (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have incorporated three reviews into the article; enough coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 04:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because article has been improved significantly by Gongshow. It now changed from this poor shape to now this. It is also important for closing Admin to not forget, the nominator Walokia (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock and has been blocked indefinitely. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for lack of sources supporting encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Cadiou

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

The article about the living person is lacking adequate reliable sources to prove the accuracy of the content provided by the page creator. Abishe (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this literally just states that he exists as a journalist and deputy mayor, sourcing the fact only to a single newspaper blurb about his initial candidacy in the municipal election which strictly speaking doesn't even verify that he actually won the election in the first place. But being a deputy mayor is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass (at this size of place even the mayor mayor wouldn't be presumed notable on this little sourcing or substance, let alone the deputy mayor!), and being a journalist is not an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him doing those things to get him over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a hell of a lot better than this, but nothing here guarantees him a Wikipedia article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it can be fixed , please take good look to his Wikipedia french page , this just Another case of confusing article qualiity with Notability , the article meet WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French article certainly has a lot more content than this, but what it doesn't have is a GNG-satisfying volume of reliable sources: it has six footnotes total, of which one is the same source that's inadequate here, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in the acknowledgements page of an author's book rather than content that's substantively about him, and one is his primary source profile on the website of the city. And the number of reliable sources left is not enough to get the deputy mayor of a small city over WP:NPOL #2 — every municipal councillor in every town could always show three pieces of purely local coverage, whereas our notability standards for local politicians require substantial evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office by virtue of having garnered a lot more coverage than most others could show. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment i told you this article can be fixed, it need more work, Samat lib (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC) but i have added more sources to the article .Samat lib (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference-bombing one statement with a string of 11 sources, while adding no actual substance to expand the article to say any more than it already said, is not "fixing" anything. As I said, what we require is evidence that he's substantially more notable than most other deputy mayors of most other places, by virtue of having garnered substantially more coverage than most other deputy mayors of most other places could show, and what you've added to the article is not demonstrating that at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment notable French journalist sports commentary, multiple independent sources added - his WELL known as French journalist sports commentary, the article meet WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin Samat lib has been blocked for sockpuppetry per this block log

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST i.e all the professions claimed. And attempt to ref-bomb 1 claim while substantial text is unreferenced shows clear attempt to game Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:10, 29 October 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 keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#6, since the article in question is currently linked to on the Main Page (see Template:In the news), the procedure for AfD is to wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating the article here. Mz7 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Republic (2017)

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

A "Catalan Republic" does not exist. It's a fantasy by some fanatics. It is not recognized. It has no support beyond the fanatics. It doesn't control any territory. It has no administration. It has nothing. It's like a garage band or some performance art. Snowball delete. noclador (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't matter if it exists; it matters if it has media coverage, which it does. Thus, it should be kept. Plus, it mentions how it is a unilaterally declared state, so I don't see any problem. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly notable, whatever its ultimate fate. PatGallacher (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Independence has been declared by the local government, which has autonomous power, following a (albeit repressed) referendum. This and the huge amount of press coverage and statements of numerous governments it has received makes this notable enough. There are articles of unrecognised nations (with no de facto and/or de jure control) on Wiki with far lesser press coverage and "notability" than this, yet are firm keepers. The name on the other hand I question. Catalan Republic is a historical term. Is there a any evidence this is what the provisional government is calling itself? How do we even know if it is or shall be a republic? Catalan State or simply Catalonia (self-declared state) would be better names. UaMaol (talk) 01:52, 29 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball: Duke vs. South Carolina

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

A WP:MILL basketball game from the round of 32 of the NCAA tournament. PROD declined. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This was an upset, but nothing over and above what we see most years. I think there is minimal historical significance for the game and it didn’t get coverage over and above any other tournament loss by a traditional power program Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual games are inherently not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. No content to merge, as it's primarily WP:OR based on primary sources of stats databases and game play-by-play logs. Aside: This article was approved by WP:AFC. Gasp!—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the strange rationale given for deprod is not about whether it is notable, but because it is accepted through AFC. Also clear WP:MILL at round 32! Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Upsets happen in the NCAA Tournament. Few such upsets rise to the level of getting their own article. Lepricavark (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We cover teams, tournaments, seasons, and even teams by seasons. Games and individuals plays, unless exceptionally notable (e.g. The Catch (American football)) - no.Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Weinstein

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

He just doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. {{PROD}} previously removed — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His only notable contribution seems to be the equivalence of some economic theories with guage theories in physics. His non-standard theories seem to have no significant support or opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his theories have not generated enough coverage to show notability for them. Nothing else comes close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to explain THIS? Carrite (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nineteen references that demonstrate notability.Racklever (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references support facts about him, but those facts do not necessarily indicate notability. In other words, not a reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I recall his "Geometric Unity" making a fairly big splash in the pop-science media at the time (2013), mostly on account of all the scientists saying how unprofessional the whole affair was. (Some sample reactions collected here: [19].) And after that splash, it sank without a trace. So, while one might plausibly argue that he is notable for his notoriety, I am sympathetic to the argument that that incident was one event, without sustained interest. I don't think his ideas about gauge theory and economics have attracted enough attention to make Weinstein notable by WP:PROF#C1. The CV on his website is ancient (2003 (!)), and checking the papers listed there on GS, the citation counts are 10, 42, 120, and 18 (GS couldn't find some of them at all). XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think one can make case here for notability on WP:ACADEMIC grounds, but the subject does pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This is not a WP:BIO1E situation. There has been plenty of coverage of him in the media over the years quite unrelated to the 2013 "theory of everything" episode. E.g. here is a 2015 Capital Public Radio in-depth piece specifically and in detail about him Talking About Death Over Dinner. He was also a key figure in the August 2017 Google memo story& controversy about the treatment of women in Silicon Valley and the Tech Industry. Here are a few samples People Responded Perfectly To Mathematician’s Sexist Tweet About That Google Memo, 'Stop teaching my girl to complain to HR' tweet raked on Twitter. Etc. There are many other examples where he is quoted in the media because of his role as the Managing Director of Thiel Capital. Overall there is certainly enough coverage, in depth, detail and in duration, to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:GNG. The chap is Managing Director, of Thiel Capital, the investment firm of Peter Theil! He is quite a prolific writer of think pieces, with three essays at Big Think, one of the contributors to the Edge's yearly survey question.[20] Was recently subject of a Vox interview.[21]. Here is another interview by on a week show by Tim Ferriss.[22] --Salix alba (talk): 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92, plenty of evidence that this individual is sufficiently notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think when The Guardian runs a headline like THIS, the question of whether the subject fulfills GNG is pretty much resolved. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may or may not meet WP:ACADEMIC but he meets the GNG, and the encyclopedia is better with this biography as a result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As as a reader, a user of Wikipedia as a resource, I found the presence of this article useful. I came across Eric Weinstein speaking on a podcast to topics largely outside of his professional/academic fields and found it valuable to be able to look him up on en:Wikipedia and learn of other aspects of his life and accomplishments. Hence, I support keeping the Eric Weinstein article because for me (and by extension potentially for other readers as well) in practice it provides encyclopedic value. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (although, with two delete comments, I really can't). It would be nice if some of the material indicating notability would make it to the article, per requests over a year old. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Global Challenges Foundation. Consensus to merge following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Challenges Foundation Prize 2017

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

Coverage of this one year-old contest is limited to a single article on Reuters (note that the references section cites a number of media outlets but, in all instances, they are simply syndicated copies of the one Reuters article). Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Global Challenges Foundation - not enough to warrant its own article Burley22 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Global Challenges Foundation; there's not enough to justify two articles on this group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Challenges Foundation, plus article is too promotional in tone. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Global Challenges Foundation. Informative article but merge is a good choice. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep, as per Power~enwiki (non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Challenges Foundation

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

This is a second AfD due to the first finding no consensus. Article on this organization is sourced almost entirely to its own website. The only substantial RS about it relates to a single contest it organized and, therefore, does not meet GNG for sustained and ongoing coverage. Edit - two additional RS discovered in the original AfD were fleeting and incidental mentions of the organization that do not establish anything about it other than it exists and, therefore, fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We dont put articles up for deletion again just days after the last AfD was closed. This would have been a matter for the talk page of the article. My stance has not changed in the last few days. Still keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for keep was "sources shows that the foundation exists" [23]. The mere existence of a thing does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Many things exist, not all receive WP entries. For instance, my cat exists, however, she does not merit a WP entry even if I were able to prove her existence.

AfD is not a vote or ballot; per WP:AFDEQ "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Therefore, "it exists" should not be given the same consideration as a policy-based argument for delete. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG; proof of life is not proof of notability Burley22 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That summary makes no sense. BabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep I don't see an obvious reason to delete, and it was *just* nominated. Also, I'm voting to merge a different nomination here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Sattar Bhuiyan

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

The claim is that he was notable as a third-level administrative division party leader, as an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament, as a commissioner for Dhaka's 48th ward, and as acting mayor of the city. It's true that for major cities, there is a tendency to keep city councillors, and mayors have usually survived AfD, according to explanatory supplement WP:POLOUTCOMES. However he was at most acting mayor (typically in Bangladesh, a mayor appoints an acting mayor when they will be out of town). His time in government fails verifiability, so we don't know if he did anything or how long he was acting mayor (or of course if any of it is true).

90% of the article is unverified. The cited sources are: (1) a newspaper article that mentions him as the father of Ahsan Habib Bhuiyan, and (2) Wikipedia article Gojmohal Tannery High School (which circularly cites this Wikipedia article). Searches, including by Bengali-script name, of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia found: an elections results listing that confirms he lost a bid for the Noakhali-2 seat in 1996,[24] and a passing mention of his being one of several people injured when protesters clashed with police.[25] (Raw results also include a different MA Sattar Bhuiyan, Chairman of the Bangladesh Finished Leather and Leather Goods Exporters Association (BFLLEA), who was still alive in 2013.) Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even for major world cities on the order of Dhaka, we still only keep mayors or city councillors if they can be referenced to adequate reliable source coverage about their work in those roles — we do not hand them an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because they exist, but require them to be the subject of substantive reliable source coverage. But there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown at all — even the one source present here was written by his son, and just mentions Sattar's existence without being about him. (I've already stripped the WP:CIRCULAR "reference" to another Wikipedia article, for the record.) That's not even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page. A Train^talk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Berman

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

Article fails GNG. Berman appears to only have received coverage due to the fact he was and/or is being considered for appointment as a U.S. federal prosecutor. May be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen articles on US district attorneys deleted, but in general they are in the long run held to be notable, although no ruling that they are absolutely notable exists. The postion he is being considered for, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is especially important because it covers Manhattan, and thus is key to US securities enforcement, and is one of the more populous districts with large amounts of business going on. There are articles on every appointed (as opposed to interim) holder of the office since 1958, and many articles on previous holders. Although I did not review to see how many are most notable for this position, and how many notable for other positions held. Still, until Berman is actually confirmed as the USDA, and even more so until he is actually nominated, he is clearly not notable. If his nomination does occur, even if unconfirmed, it might propel him to notability, but nothing right now suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy As per John Pack Lambert, if/when confirmed and commissioned he will undoubtedly pass GNG. And, because this might occur in the very near future, I am changing my initial nomination to userfy. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or sandbox in user or draft space. If and when he gets appointed, he'll definitely be notable — federal prosecutor for New York City, as in Preet Bharara, is pretty much a no-brainer — but merely being a possible candidate for appointment to an office that's still up in the air as of today is not a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he's appointed, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- ~~I think we all agree that in the absence of a nomination, Berman will be a one-event phenom (his interview). If he is nominated, we can argue his notability.~~ Berman was a defense lawyer in the Bridgegate trial. He represented the deputy director of the Port Authority. He exceeds WP:BLP1E If confirmed, notability is almost assured. His popularity with the administration continues (and attracts press). It seems counterproductive to delete the article now, only to reinstate it in a few weeks. If another is nominated for the post at S.D.N.Y. I will see that this article is deleted. Rhadow (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up.
That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.

It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Berman is nominated for U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., the article will be valuable as a first stop for a reader. If he isn't, it should go. The question in a TOOSOON discussion is how much leeway we give. The AfD process probably gives it another two weeks of life. We don't have a means to sunset articles that grow stale over three weeks or three months. If we keep now, there is a good chance that if he is not appointed, a worthless article will be hanging around in three years. On the other hand, if his nomination proceeds, it's a waste of time to delete, with the likely result that the work already done will not be recovered, but created again from scratch. At the rate the administration is going, we won't see more discussion of Berman till 2018. Look at the progress of the nominees for DOL and EPA. Two months David Zatezalo has been on the docket for MSHA. For good order's sake, I'll stash a copy of Berman's article. Then, whatever consensus we arrive at will be okay. Rhadow (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User-fy if he's nominated for US Attorney he'll meet GNG. As it is, I don't see it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Adam West: still Batman after all these years". Boston Globe. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

[2] "Comic Con organizer is glad he brought TV's Adam West to Hanover". Enterprise News. Retrieved 28 October 2017.

[3] "Comic Con draws thousands of fans to Hanover Mall". Patriot Ledger. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

[4] "Southcoast Comic Con returns to Hanover Mall". Wicked Local Hanover. Retrieved 29 October 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asma Rahim}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. K. Mathur}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Kim Booster}}<!--Relisted-->