Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 12 December 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 December	5 December >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Colts Schedule and Results

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: Flibirigit (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are WP:LISTCRUFT by including every single game played, and player in the team's history. Contradicts WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NHOCKEY. We do not have this detail for higher-level NHL teams, let alone junior hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support nominator's reasoning for posting AfD. Good faith articles that simply do not pass the test. Wikipedia is not a fansite. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Far too much intricate detail for a team that isn't even a major team. Ajf773 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I stated on the talk page for the Barrie Colts, NOTSTATS and original research LISTCRUFT. While they are currently unreferenced as well, the references are easy to come by. However, it is just a bunch of WP:ROUTINE coverage. We do actually often go into that level of detail for NHL teams, but it is usually split into individual season pages. Individual season pages would likely be fine (for GNG) in the OHL given its level of coverage in the Ontario and general Canadian media, but I have not seen the level of editor commitment in the upkeep of said subjects (same goes for minor league North American hockey in general). Yosemiter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Draft Pick and Schedule and Results lists per nom; keep the roster but reorganize it. IF we do not have all-time team rosters for NHL teams there is no reason why we should not, and I don't see a reason a sourced roster for a lower level team would be inappropriate either. The current state of the roster is overly detailed, and a list would partially duplicate information from the category. But an appropriately formatted list could include information that is excluded from the categories, such as the years each player played for the team and possibly the position. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rlendog: For such a list to exist for the junior team, is there any more to the sourcing for WP:LISTN talking about all-time roster for every player ever? (All-time best, sure. But the entire roster ever? Seems to be somewhat excessive and never ending. At least in the NHL they would be notable players and with less change season-to-season.) Doesn't Category:Barrie Colts players suffice for a suitable list? Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - All time best would be a problem because of we would need an objective and reliable source for "best." Unless you are referring to a top 10 or so in various statistical categories. That would seem appropriate. But I don't have a problem with a list of every player who played for a given junior team (admittedly for notable players that would duplicate information in the category) since the list would be reliably sourceable and the category would not include players who do not have aritcles, and the list could also include some other relevant information, such as the years they played for the team, possibly games played or points scored. It would be a long list, but for someone who is interested in the particular team it could be beneficial (and reliably sourced). Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - By all-time best, I did mean reliably sourced, but yes it would be problematic in general due to bias. However, per WP:LISTN, for a stand-alone list to be considered notable, the subject should be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I think the problem I see with it is that it is too WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the subject of the All-time players for the Barrie Colts is not really a topic that is discussed independently. It makes more of a stats page. Most of the time when independent sources discuss the Barrie Colts players, it is as footnote in a profile of a notable player's career. I think could also work just fine a redirect to a notable Barrie Colts section (or even list if there were a good GNG reason for having it). I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING might be a good guideline here: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Yosemiter (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xometry

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

Company web page, disguised as an article. Essentially advertising, with no source except press releases and notices. The Forbes item is a uncritical interview that only includes what he chooses to say about himself DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is a promotional piece.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - purely promotional material. Enough rationale for deletion. TalkMe (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the company has not made any significant contribution or anything to claim notability. I do agree that this is an upcoming company and in a few years, if all goes well, it may be truly notable. However, right now I am not finding many references beyond local business journals and 3d printing hobby websites.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheese Course

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

minor restaurant chain. 2 refs from itself, 2 from a local business journal, which is a place to publish PR. 1 from a local newspaper. Nothing more DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - routine local coverage only. Search for further sources turned up nothing, appears to be a non-notable restaurant chain. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I could only find routine coverage, nothing in-depth. Jujutacular (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Murals

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

Non-unique event, strictly local, no national or regional media coverage. Fails WP:EVENT Rogermx (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the event sounds charming, this annual Wayne County, Indiana event has attracted only very limited, exclusively local attention and fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notwithstanding details of whether WP:NOTSPAM applies, consensus has emerged that the subject is simply not notable, per WP:GNG Jujutacular (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Westerheide

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

Spam article created by a CU confirmed UPE sock. I had tagged as G5, but when going back through, noticed it had some substantial content added by a good faith user. Still spam and a TOU violation, so it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first reference is decent, but none of the rest provide any sort of significant coverage. They're brief mentions, quotations, interviews, primary-sources, etc. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Wired article? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two Wired articles referenced. One is behind a paywall and appears to be an interview (which would be a primary source and doesn't count toward notability), and the other gives just a brief mention to the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lack coverage in reliable sources. CEO of a nn company is almost always a GNG fail, and there's nothing else better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant independent coverage for stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reference cited here. Additionally, I don't think the nom has cited how the article doesn't meet notability even if borderline. Granted there may be a sock behind it but the subject in its scrutiny meets GNG as per my interpretation of WP:GNG TalkMe (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:N is the guideline under which WP:GNG is but one part. Passing the GNG is not in itself sufficient to be considered notable under that guideline. A subject must pass the GNG or an SNG and the article must pass WP:NOT to have a presumption of inclusion per WP:N. The GNG cannot overrule the guideline in which it is contained. This article fails WP:NOTSPAM as a promotional commissioned work by a CU confirmed UPE farm. The question of notability is not important. Also, as your userpage says you edit for pay at all times, I think it is fair to question whether or not you can be objective in this case, and whether or not you were paid for this vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Gutierrez

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and meets none of the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Fox

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article presents no content that would pass WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and meets none of the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Du

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and fails to meet any critieria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Darling

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and the accomplishments to meet WP:NHOCKEY. The best I see is being a conference all star in a Canadian collegiate league and that's not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Vaccaro

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

Not notable. Just because he knew Johnny Cash and had a minority (not primary as in the article) share in a notable guitar manufacturer does not make him notable. Rusf10 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination doesn't seem to match what is actually in the article. He wasn't just someone who met Johnny Cash. The article itself mentions quite a few notability reasons for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me rephrase that, he was good friends with Johnny Cash. It still doesn't make him notable, seeWP:INVALIDBIO.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what about his dealings with Jackson? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a large amount of sourcing showing on my searches. I suspect that Nom had a recentism problem with his WP:BEFORE search due to the fact that Vaccero was active in the 80s. Doing stuff like developing real estate in Asbury Park N.J., messing in local politics, collecting Jackson-related stuff. Here's a search of "Henry Vaccaro" at NYTimes [1]. Article just needs an editor willing to improve the article. Star Ledger archives would be the place to start.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Why is this at AfD altogether? there is enough stuff on the page to indicate probable notability, and a quick search ought to have resolved whatever doubts Nom harboured. I coudl see tagging it, but AfD? E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, based on the sources you found I see that he is more notable than I had thought. The two factors that made me think this should be deleted are that the Kramer Guitars article lists him only as a minor partner (but the NYT source you found says he is the owner) and the fact that the article was originally created as an autobiography (either directly by him or someone associated with him). I'll withdraw the nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also the one that anyone can destroy. This is yet one more in a string of AfDs created by this nominator, none of which appear to have any evidence of WP:BEFORE being addressed. Simply stating "Not notable. Just because he knew Johnny Cash..." doesn't cut it. The sources in the article and those readily available in reliable and verifiable sources all speak to his notability as a businessperson. If it was p to me, Rusf10 wold be topic banned from AfD. Alansohn (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing its not up to you. Wikipedia:AFDEQ--Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article appears to pass GNG and at present is in a NPOV state. Just because it was created by an account with the purpose of advertising, does not mean that it is still the case (that it is still advertising in nature). Due to the fact that Wikipedia is editable by anyone, articles can be improved and have advertising content/puffery removed and can also be improved upon as sources are found (or by copy editing etc.).

As stated by Anachronist, while it is not advisable for editors who have a conflict of interest with a particular subject to edit it, some editors in the scenario do decide to make that choice and are capable of creating a decent article. It is an article that has been around for quite a while and is about a notable individual. As stated by DGG, in its current state, the article is neutral in its point of view and notable.

In reviewing the justifications of the !votes, I have come to the conclusion that it is the consensus of this discussion's participants that this Articles for Deletion discussion be closed as "keep". (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Tilton

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

Not notable. This was created as a promotional page by her company. The account that created it is now blocked and the major contributions to this page have been done mostly by single-purpose accounts. Rusf10 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It no longer matters that this was a SPA article. The promo stuff needs to be cleaned up. She became notable when she was accused of defrauding investors. Rhadow (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes an editor with a COI is capable of starting a decent article. This is a long-standing article about a person notable for some controversy and possibly also for some awards. I cleaned up a bit of puffery just now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article that's almost a decade old and that has plenty of reliable and verifiable sources about the article's subject ,her businesses and her alleged crimes. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard her referenced in a local news article (https://www.postandcourier.com/business/the-collapse-of-an-industrial-icon-what-happened-to-american/article_956f125b-f960-579e-be13-c000dafd5b27.html) and came to Wikipedia to learn more. I think others might do the same. (Apologies if I'm formatting my response incorrectly - this is my first time trying to post to a discussion like this.) DMC Engineer (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and we probably need an article for her company also--it was previously deleted as copyvio..Both are notable, and this article is at present in a NPOV state. Even by my current standards, this is one of the exceptions where an article is justified despite its origin. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the references look fine to me. --RAN (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky and World War I

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

Standalone page does not seem necessary, as this is covered in the Leon Trotsky article, and can be expanded on there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a separate topic, covered in sources:
Thatcher I. D. Leon Trotsky and World War One: August 1914 — February 1917. — Springer, 2000. — 262 p. — ISBN 9781403913968; etc. --Balabinrm (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a period of his life. I don't think it makes sense to fork it off into a different article unless it is substantial and the original article is already too long. But that's just my opinion ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Trotsky" article is not short; will extend "Trotsky and WWI" from the RU-wiki feature article. --Balabinrm (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, RU-version of the article is 100+ kB itself (only Thatcher book is 200+ pages) - I cannot add even half of it without ruining WP:WEIGHT. --Balabinrm (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [2] Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My plan is: to make a real (not stub) version of the article and according to it rewrite/extend (a bit) the corresponding section of Trotsky. Has already done it in RU-wiki. --Balabinrm (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Trotsky's article is long and this article was just created. Give the creator time. If the article remains too short, it can be renominated. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy ~~Delete or rather Draftify~~. This isn't ready for main space, and is actually shorter and less comprehensive than Leon Trotsky#World War I (1914–1917). I think the title shouldn't have an "and" in it (should be "Trotsky during World War I" or something similar). I'm not sure if WWI is what I would spin out of Trotsky (e.g. his role in the Russian revolution and civil war are much more extensive) - but in any event a spinout article should be properly developed prior to mainspacing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Make clear this is a Userfy !vote.[reply]
Ok. Will develope. --Balabinrm (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userify -- The problem with this article is that it is incomplete, most of it existing as an outline only. With a major figure like Trotsky, bio-articles can get out of hand, so that separate articles such as what is planned here have a place, but it is not ready for main space today. 10-12 years ago,we would have put up with articles under construction in main space. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next editor who comes to the page can Userfy this, since User:Balabinrm has agreed to bring it up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy — One could make a case for this essay as a subpage of the Trotsky biography. It is almost certainly a topic that would pass GNG, although this piece as it stands is nothing but a lead, a bibliography, and a subheading skeleton... I would suggest to the creator, however, that a more productive and less controversial use of their time would be composing a page for War and the International. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Schwartz

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

Article never should have been created, biography is not notable and article is promotional. Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources in the article are independent reliable sources, and in a search I could find only name-checks, nothing to indicate notability under WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. Any article that says the subject "boasts" anything is highly suspicious. Schwartz is a non-notable businessman and former political consultant. Nothing is close to rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Johan Masreliez

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

Fails WP:PROF. Cannot find other evidence of notability. Note that Masreliez's theorem was created out-of-process and is currently under a CSD request for recreated deleted content. jps (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims of significance in the article are not backed up by reliable sources (they come from the subject or a collaborator). I can only find three papers that seem to have been at all well cited ([3], with 383 on GS and 180 on Web of Science; [4], with 380 and 179; and [5], with 111 and 53). Apart from that, the bulk of what turns up is fringe stuff about cosmology. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is references as well. As the above voter dtates there are a few references that points towards notability. If it is 3 or a 100 is irrelevant. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO real evidence of notability, and some very iffy sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has one highly cited patent and then only low citation numbers for all other publications, not enough for WP:PROF#C1. And the article makes no attempt at a claim of notability other than for his publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability guidelines for academics trump the general notability guidelines, unless the individual is notable in a clearly not academic way. However Masreliez has potential notability only for academic related activity. However he does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his main contributions are in control theory, which still seem to fall short of the notability criteria. His cosmology-related work is fringe science. Note that his article has been deleted from svwiki twice (1, 2) following AfD-equivalent procedure. The second deletion also ended with the banning of a user and his puppets for repeatedly introducing content about Masreliez cosmological theories in many different articles. Andejons (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraz Ali Muskrahat

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

No apparent evidence for notability--author of a series of elementary language instruction textbooks. Previous AfD back in 2009, but attracted no attention and was closed as non-consensus. I can find nothing but catalog listings of individual books-- From [6] they seem to be 200 or so pages each. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.--IamIRAQI (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Saqib (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vtiger Customer Relationship Management

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

Deleted in January due to lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vtiger_CRM. No recent coverage that would require reassessment, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Promotional. Rentier (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:G4. Article was previously created and deleted under a different name, current article does not appear to include any information post-dating that AfD that would indicate a change in notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:GNG and this software fails WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search finds a lot of third party references, reviews and significant coverage in the news. The current article needs to be improved and rather than deleting sufficient time may be given to the community to improve the article. Hagennos (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable entrant in crowded field. Nothing changed since last time. HighKing, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman, Lourdes already observed. Rhadow (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails for the same reasons as the last article was deleted. No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Hever

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

A MIA-kind of a soldier who's been missing for twenty years. Not notable by any MILHIST standards I'm aware of, and it strikes me as a clear example of BLP1E. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli MIAs. Delete reluctantly. I can see a situation where an unsolved mystery gets a lot of coverage and international attention over many years, but this incident, while it has some coverage, is concentrated in a relatively short period and covered only by Israeli news outlets. I agree this is a BLP1E situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a whole and only covered in Israeli news sources. BLP1E. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I see the argument with the WP:BLP1E, I do not believe it applies here, as the search has been dropped and restarted multiple times making it multiple events. The article utilizes sources that show coverage over a 20 years and there I believe it meets WP:LASTING and WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to missing person case and not to the person. Note this BIO1E and not BLP1E (there is little to no expectation he is alive). There are copious and on going RSes covering this (yes, the searches and new leads are still being covered - every skeleton someone finds leads to a story). He does not meet SOLDIER, the case however amply meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was also thinking that it should be moved to the event rather than the person, however when I looked at Gilad Shalit to see how that is listed, since he is best known for being an MIA soldier as well, I noticed it was listed as just his name, so I thought this made sense as well. - Galatz ^Talk 18:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shalit is a bit different in that he generated some, rather gossipy, coverage post-release. Hever really is only notable for being missing - and for the ongoing searches after him - that is still being covered - e.g. Israel follows up on false tip missing soldier was at a mental health clinic (well OK - someone thought he might be alive in a mental asylum), Family marks 20 years to disappearance of IDF soldier Guy Hever - and this November 2017 isn't the exception to the coverage - he's being covered in this manner on and on in the news. In books, even a few journal papers - e.g. Kaplan, Danny. "Commemorating a suspended death: Missing soldiers and national solidarity in Israel." American Ethnologist 35.3 (2008): 413-427.. The missing person case easily passes GNG - just on English sources.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess there also is a big difference as Israel knew Shalit was alive and in Gaza. They even released video and photos of him holding newspapers as proof. I don't believe anyone is claiming Hever is alive and being held captive. Just the name appears to be the common convention in Category:Israeli prisoners of war. - Galatz ^Talk 19:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- Since we should be treating this as an event: "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)", according to WP:EVENTCRIT. No sign of diverse coverage; the same media outlets have just provided the same routine updates with little to no significant information. No new leads can be expected in a missing persons case, but the lack of a historical significance is what keeps me from voting anything other than delete. All we have here is a old news story on one event that is fueled by media speculation and theories but no actual indications of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that coverage in Jerusalem Post had been far form "routine". Proquest shows about 30 articles in JPost, long, reported articles over the span of 20 years. titles include: Israel to resume search for missing solider. Guy Hever disappeared without a trace from his northern Israeli base in 1997 (2016,) IDF renews search for missing soldier Guy Hever]] (2013), Israel resumes search for soldier missing since 1997, BBC , 2016, and many more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides continuing coverage from reliable and verifiable sources about the historically significant efforts over the years to find him. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to ongoing coverage in article that is ONGOING over 2 decades, and the fact that a good deal more exists, including years of articles form JTA [7]; two finm The Forward:
- Family of Captive Seeks U.S. Help
- Do Skeletal Remains Belong to Israeli MIAs?
- The Times of London: Schalit prisoner swap could bring freedom for 'next leader' of Fatah, relevant text: "Negotiated solutions are not always possible. The whereabouts of Guy Hever, an Israeli soldier missing in the Golan Heights in 1997, are unknown." 2009. and many more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  That's a trivial mention, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets Wikipedia criteria based on sources--IamIRAQI (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that provide significant coverage are rather narrow, and it's still one event that must meet WP:EVENTCRIT inclusion criteria. I'm not really seeing it yet, based on the sources provided. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are far from narrow. Every Israeli news organization has covered this in depth multiple times (even dozens of times) over the last 20 years. NCRIME (or GNG) requires national coverage. This has also been covered in international news sources, the US congress, the European council, and several books.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unfortunately there are a lot of MIA cases. Despite the media attention, I can't see why his case is more important than others. He was not notable before the mia incident, therefore he still is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since its establishment, Israel has been in a constant state of conflict with its neighbors. Torture or murder of Israeli soldiers who are captured by enemies is considered de rigueur and a military directive allegedly directs soldiers to kill their comrades rather than let them be captured alive. There are only five Israeli soldiers who are missing in action. For the duration of his captivity, each will continue to be the subject of significant and sustained news coverage of the type that makes a person notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Admittively, I still believe most of what I wrote still applies to this article and the keep !votes up until now were not at all convincing or stronger applications of policy. But then I read MS's comment. He accurately describes why this person will have enduring significance in a way I, and really no one else, thought of. I recommend renaming the article and it needs a clean-up but I am changing my !vote, fully convinced by MS's statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . See above. Ongoing coverage has been established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above, "unfortunately there are a lot of MIA cases". Not seeing lasting notability; trivia. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal City

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

After some searching, I'm not finding much in the way of significant coverage and the sources included in the article are almost entirely primary (Facebook and soundcloud, etc...) and after looking through several sources, I've yet to find one that supports any of the statements in the article let alone anything that appears to establish notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this discussion is pre-dated by a parallel discussion regarding the page for this artiste under his real name. It would be sensible to discuss the two pages together: if others are in agreement, I propose we keep the debate here, to prevent comments from being missed. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kevlin Ryan has now been speedily merged into Paranormal City. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kevlin Ryan was a direct copy of Paranormal City - nothing to merge - did a bold redirect.PRehse (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Both Paranormal City, and the Mark Kevlin Ryan redirect). Per nom, apart from the 2014 coverage in a local (Wicklow) newspaper, there doesn't seem to be any non-trivial coverage of the subject. Independent of the article, I can find no non-trivial coverage. Within the article, the claimed coverage seems spurious at best. (The claims on international awards and coverage in music magazines would presumably be easily verified - but the links are to the magazines homepages, and a search through - for example - the Hot Press and NME back issues archives do not return anything. Similarly, the claim on "chart topping" would seem easily verified. However, a search through the historical IRMA chart listing returns nothing - and the "screengrab" from someone's iPhone, purportedly showing a [fleeting?] placement in iTunes doesn't meet WP:RS). In short, the subject doesn't seem to meet either the GNG or WP:MUSICBIO criteria. And the article seems to substantively skirt the guidelines against introducing deliberately false, exaggerated, promotional or vanity content. Guliolopez (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious vanity page by SPA editor containing un-verifyable claims and heavily “sourced” with any and every possible mention/appearance on social media/user download sites/blogs, small-time media, etc. While a few of these appear legit media they are basically extracting content from self-hype. And even then they are not reporting on anything substantially more than a young performer who has big ambitions. At best a case of WP:TOO SOON ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: others have probably noticed already, but I've nominated the page Signs (Paranormal City song) for deletion - same SPA, same rationale. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above but especially in the vanity angle. It is almost breathless in the self sell - a green belt in taekwondo indeed.PRehse (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three [8] [9] somewhat usable sources, including a review of his MP. I would say: keep the discography and tours and trim the rest down to a stub, whether or not the primary author will allow. Subuey (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, both of these sources fail WP:MUSICBIO: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works ... except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mentions on facebook and Youtube do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County Line, Georgia

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

Lack of significant coverage. While there is a historical school, there's not a clear community of this name. The zip code is for another community and there's no clear definition of where this community is supposed to be (despite an earlier claim that a source gave one). Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that County Line was ever a recognized populated place. The source is a mirror of USGS GNIS (343627), which says this is only the historic location of a school based on government records. Nothing found in an independent search. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even the single source does not claim this is an actual place, but rather an historical school (which the GNIS agrees with). There is a County Line Place in Georgia (see here), which currently does not have an article, but that is in a different county. There is also a County Line Heights, again in a different county (see here). Most importantly, there is a populated place in Meriwether County, Georgia with this name, which would pass WP:GEOLAND as such. I think the article needs to be re-written to show that populated place. If that's the decision of this discussion, ping me and I'll take care of it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Use the map, zoom in on the satellite view, you'll see nothing much there. In my view it is a misinterpretation of what GNIS is. Rhadow (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another placename database hallucination: things on "County Line Road" might be named "County Line X", but there's clearly no there there. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Milliner

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are a few more references up to 2017, which will allow some improvement to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be sufficient sources on him if one clicks the links at the top [10], [11], [12], including this article which calls him "one of Queensland’s most decorated match officials": [13]. SunChaser (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has been a professional referee at club level for 9 years, and at international level for 4. As the two above !votes show there is sufficient coverage to back this up and demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage appears to be mainly routine sports reporting--that he was the ref for this game, he made a bad call here, he got hurt there, or he's mentioned in a list of referees. Being one of over 3000 FIFA international referees doesn't seem encyclopedic and being a one of a state's "most decorated officials" doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. I also didn't see his name on the current list of FIFA officials[14]. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. There does not seem to be enough to pass GNG or NSPORT. Dino monster (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability for own article. His big accomplishment in article header wasn't entirely his own doing and is cited with a primary source. Google search turned up multiple doctors with the same name, aside from mundane match reports. Fails WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some sources confirm that this personality meets Wikipedia standards--IamIRAQI (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming you mean the ones already in the article, the first mentions Millner only once, among a cattle call of other referees at the end. The second is a puff piece that is now a broken link redirecting to a paywall, and the third is a match report in which he's not even mentioned. It's nowhere near enough in terms of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I held off voting until now because I was hoping someone would produce the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Since nothing has changed since my earlier comment, I'm voting to delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Marginally notable (at best) figure who requests deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zhavoronkov

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

No evidence of notability at all in the article - zero RS evidence of third-party notability; if cut to RSes it would have literally zero text left. Very little evidence in Google News - press releases, passing mentions in news articles. This needs RSes actually about the subject to have anything to talk about at all. PROD was contested without the issues being addressed. Needs RSes actually about the subject to survive. David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of any notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dr Zhavoronkov emailed me about the deletion notice. I explained the problems with the article - that there's nothing substantive to base an article on, and that WP:BLP absolutely requires that as a hard rule - also gave him links to WP:RS and WP:PROF - and invited him to comment here if he has, e.g., a list of proper press links or something that would pass Wikipedia sourcing and notability muster - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most links and referencdes in this article have not been updated since 2014. I added several more recent ones, added the PubMed links, Google Scholar. Since 2014 the subject published and co-authored over 40 research articles and received multiple awards. https://venturebeat.com/2017/04/23/nvidia-identifies-the-top-5-ai-startups-for-social-impact/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.81 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We added the conferences and editorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.170.58 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). He may be getting started, relatively speaking, but already has enough for WP notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The certain number of media publications about Dr Zhavoronkov was added with the corresponding links. These publications clearly meet the criteria of WP notability as substantial and popular secondary resources. Here is a part of them: Huffington Post,^[1] Financial Times Pensions Expert,^[2] Next Avenue,^[3] and New Scientist.^[4]. As well, the primary sources were replaced by proper secondary sources also contributing the fit to WP notability guideline. According to these changes, the raised issues about WP notability guidelines and references to primary sources can be successfully solved and closed. Anton Krotov (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

- Three of those are blog posts written by the subject, the fourth is paywalled with no visible byline and is marked "comment". Writing for media outlets is generally not considered evidence of Wikipedia notability - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scientific discipline and scholarly discipline, broadly construed). With 108 verified scientific publications in refereed scientific journals and the scientific, humanitarian, moral and humanitarian, economic, geopolitical, and existential significance of biogerontology and in silico and aging research, the article Dr. Zhavaronkov MUST be maintained (and perhaps developed further). What may be needful is a collegial assessment of the importance of Dr. Zhavaronkov's scientific and other ideas, but that's not typically the forte of Wikipedia editors. MaynardClark (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have concerns over WP:PROF criterion #1. Nearly all of Alex's scholarly publications are joint publications, with as many as a dozen contributors. I couldn't find any examples of him being the Lead Investigator (I may have overlooked some). His books seem to me to be popularizations of work in the field (not necessarily his work, rather than scholarly contributions. This is also true of the popular press references, which may well derive from press packets and publisher propaganda, rather than from serious evaluation. In the business of evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure in academia, where I have extensive experience, these would be red flags. In fact, at no point in the article is an effort made to explain exactly what the nature of his contribution is, that makes him so notable. The company he founded seems to have no company (officers, directors, managers) other than himself. If the article ends up being kept, I would certainly recommend that it be tagged with the template: "like resume". --Vicedomino (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a resume online somewhere, which would be accessible through the article. However, a Google 'search' for just his name comes up with "About 147,000 results" in 0.75 seconds. MaynardClark (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In biomedical sciences the lead author/group leader is usually the last. Most of the research papers you see in PubMed list Alex Zhavoronkov as the corresponding author.

I pay no attention to unsigned comments, nor should anyone else. I disbelieve the statement. --Vicedomino (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. Probably not notable. An analysis of the google scholar page shows only one are articles with citation over 100, and it is a review article, not a research article--and such articles characteristically have abnormally high citation counts. Of his research articles, I see counts of 91,73, 67 49, 48 67 , which in the extremely highly cited field he works in, is borderline for notability . His association as editor of a rather dubious journal does not add to notability . But, Vicedomino, it is almost universal for experimental work in the biomedical sciences to have multiple authors, and it is in fact true that either the first or last position usually represents the senior author, who is very often the head of the laboratory. As a rough gudie, a singe-authored publication in this field is likely to be more speculation than research. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of waffle words (almost universal, usually represents, very often, rough guide), I don't see how these statistical surveys can have any sort of value. One commentator calls him a "corresponding author". Where is their bench in the laboratory? --Vicedomino (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Friends, thanks for your help, but please let it be deleted, the page is not worth your time. And I took the time to create a profile here to stop this distraction. I also asked my team members to stop any attempts to rescue or improve this page.

After a brief correspondence with the requesting editor David Gerard, it was clear that the request to delete came after our PR around the paper on AI and blockchain. A quick web search shows that David is an opponent of blockchain technology and I respect him and his view, since 99% of these projects are of fraudulent nature and I also do not like Bitcoin (while the technology itself is very useful as a distributed ledger). The work he is doing is valuable, since pseudo science, alternative medicine and "anti-aging" using ancient methods are a substantial problem in several fields my team is active in. We also do work in this area by trying to collect the data from the nutraceutical industry to understand what may have some positive effects and what does not using systems like Young.AI, but it will take a year or two before we may be able to publish. But evaluating human biases is another interesting area and we published non-peer reviewed paper on that Diversity prepub and NewScientist covered it. I would really like to expand this work into evaluating the various biases in Wikipedia when I get a bit more time. Some of these biases may be subconscious and not driven by any tangible reward function. I will create a presentation slide to see if anyone would like to collaborate. If you know any veteran editors or scientists, who are intimately familiar with the Wikipedia ecosystem and the MediaWiki platform, who would like to get involved, contact me to collaborate. It may be 3-12 months project. Uncovering the individual biases and group biases using AI is a very interesting subject and we are using the data from the International Aging Research Portfolio to do study scientific bias and the reasons why many clinical trials fail. To address some of the comments on this page:

1. Most of our papers are not in Beal-list journals and some of the journals on this list got there because of some of the flaws in the past. Aging has a peer review process where sometimes you get 6 reviews back. And what is important is who publishes in the journal. Many of the top-rated scientists in the aging field do publish there from time to time.
2. I do not have a bench in a lab since 2007. We are a bioinformatics/AI group. And we always promote the young scientists, who do the work as first authors.
3. Regarding the press releases on our papers. I genuinely think that it is important to popularize research and technology innovation in every way, shape or form. Otherwise, people will talk only about the current president, Kim Kardashian and other topics that are distracting the attention from the elephant in the room - age-related diseases and the dire state of the global economy. I explained my views on science PR in a presentation at the bottom of this interview recent interview. It also has a brief introduction to quantified altruism. In my opinion, there is no greater good than extending productive longevity for everyone on the planet, but most people have very different objective functions.

No hidden agenda here. It would be great to have the page taken down. What would help is a separate non-wiki website to track the conferences we present at or organize list of talks and conferences. AlexZhavoronkov (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I believe Wikipedia:PROF is the right measure, and reading DGG's analysis I'd say borderline so weak delete or keep, but considering a BLP with sourcing issues it's delete. Widefox; talk 23:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though suggest discussing redirecting to Beauty.AI, which would be a relevant target. @Rob talk 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I added the fresh references to the articles published this week. Removed the exaggerated claims referencing to the articles in New Scientist, Huffington Post and Pensions Expert published by Zavoronkov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywired (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF and his business activity is not the focus of sufficient independent sources to meet WP:BIO. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana. Content can be merged from history. ansh 666 06:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tuhey

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

Biographies of former mayors, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. But the articles aren't referenced well enough to pass WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage -- the only source present in all but one of these articles is a single omnibus list of all of the city's past mayors, which isn't enough by itself to clear WP:GNG, and the only one that cites any source besides that just cites the "finding aid" file to an archive of the subject's personal papers (which is not a notability-assisting source in and of itself either.) We require much more substance, and much more sourcing, than this before we consider a mayor notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. And don't be fooled by the statement that Leonidas Guthrie was a "Delaware circuit court judge", either — it means the Delaware County in Indiana that Muncie is the seat of, not Delaware the state, but county court judges aren't considered automatically notable either. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I applaud this rooting out of the overabundant articles on small town mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Edward Tuhey No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Job Swain No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Charles W. Sherritt No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Charles W. Kilgore No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Frank Ellis (Indiana politician) No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep John Brady (Indiana politician) No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Arthur W. Brady No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Leonidas Guthrie No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is there "no evidence of a problem"? Wikipedia's notability standard for mayors, as spelled out by WP:NPOL, requires significant reliable source coverage, not just the ability to single-source the baseline fact that they existed to a blurb in an omnibus listicle. And incidentally, it's entirely unnecessary and inappropriate to provide a separate identical "keep" rationale for each individual article in a batch nomination — if you're going to make the same argument for each article, then you need to do that as one "vote" that addresses them all rather than as eight separate "votes". Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No two mayors are alike, and I have chosen here to treat the contributions of each article as precious enough to be worthy of individual attention and respect. Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some curious definition of "precious" if unsubstantive stub articles that are all sourced exclusively to a single omnibus listicle surpasses it. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You were advised of discussion guidelines when you posted your nomination. You were also advised, "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion", but you have chosen to ignore our deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but absence of adequate sourceability most certainly is a Wikipedia deletion criterion. HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE is part of WP:ATA, and explains that just pointing to a policy is not helpful to explain an editor's viewpoint.

"Adequate sourceability" is not a policy based term. Not only could this relate to either WP:DEL7 or WP:DEL8, it might be read as a moving the goalpost argument, or as misdirection to avoid responding regarding WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, or as an attempt to shift the burden of evidence in the mind of the closer. Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEL7 and DEL8 are both listed as reasons why an article should be deleted, yet for some reason you keep raising them as if they represented counterarguments that somehow militated against deletion. And nobody moved any goalposts, either: a mayor's notability is conditional on his or her depth of sourceability, not just on being able to single-source the basic fact that he or she existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator: How would the deletion of these articles make Wikipedia a better encylopedia. What is the problem with their existence? Egaoblai (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of adequate sourcing to demonstrate that they pass a notability standard. Wikipedia's job is not to keep minimally sourced articles about everybody who ever existed; our job is to keep properly sourced articles about people who pass one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all into List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana. The information presented in that list article can be expanded (perhaps with a "notes" column) to encompass the details related in these articles. bd2412 T 03:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all into List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana per above. There's just not much here other than terms of office and reduplication of city history. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Mayors of a medium-sized city. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana. Individual articles are not notable enough to stand on their own and have next to no content. Not a directory. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All- List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana is enough, none of these people are individually notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article subject is found to lack the notability required in WP:NARTIST. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Stagg

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

The subject of this article about an erotic photographer, one among the approximately 50,000 active, professional, American photographers, probably lacks notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage to to demonstrate her notability per WP:CREATIVE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PHOTOGRAPHER & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good example judging a book by its cover and the failure to do WP:BEFORE. I did my research and found three decent mentions in news and books in five minutes. I see more out there. The article is a mess, but why not improve it rather than delete? Notability (GNG)is established by sourcing. 104.163.154.101 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out by what criteria should we judge an article except on the basis of its contents? The content is the only thing we can go by; there is no "cover" in this "book". As to the work necessary before submitting the article for deletion, please rest assured that it was done. Also, a discussion was started in the article's Talk Page; not surprisingly, it drew no participants. Moreover, the article has been tagged as lacking notability since 2009! Your opinion is fully respected but please do not make assumptions about other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome: check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers, Northamerica1000. As the one who opened this deletion proposal, I'm afraid I already commented too much. I'm taking my leave. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a few sources. Fair warning: some of the sources listed below have soft nude images. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Huffpost
New Jersey Stage
Meet the Regulars: People of Brooklyn and the Places They Love. pp. pt60-64.
NY Press

Only the Huffington Post mention passes the criteria for reliable sources for a WP:BLP. An "Upper West Side website", a mention in a book about "Brooklyn regulars", and the listing in a mass exhibition are not eligible to support the notion of the subject's notability. But, of course, enough editors may believe that the article should nonetheless be kept. -The Gnome (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- lacks reliable sources to back up notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up some of the references and added more as suggested by Northamerica1000 earlier on this page. The subject passes WP:GNG because of the numerous reliable sources WP:RS which contain significant coverage of her. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the mention in Huffington post, I don't see any other reliable sources talking about her work. Sure, there are local self published websites. But hardly any reliable sources. Artists require critical acclaim but the subject doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria for WP:NARTIST.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Meet the Regulars" source is good, but most of the source list is non-authoritative cruft (gallery sites, broken links, etc.) Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. Merge is not strictly the consensus opinion here, but most commenters are OK with it, and WP:ATD argues for it. Some people preferred a partial merge, so use your best judgement on how much content to move. No consensus on whether to leave a redirect behind, so I'll leave that up to whoever does the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania statewide and federal candidates

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

List of non-notable candidates from a small party with fails WP:N. TM 11:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania- statewide candidates for one of the larger third parties has some notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced, useful, and I would not say the Libertarian Party is a "small party", it's notable for sure. Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania is not necessarily a bad idea but that page is in far worse shape than this one, at this time, so if that one were improved, I might support a merge then. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources linked only provide routine coverage expected during any election cycle (even fringe candidates get the occasional news mention), and none of the candidates were elected. I think that the article could be partially merged with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania article, including the specific ideological positions expressed by the candidates without much reference to the candidates themselves. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ... or perhaps because I am part of a secret government agency assigned to discredit the Libertarian Party. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:LISTN - none of these are notable individuals. I do however think a merge of the content to Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (e.g. as an electoral record/history) is possible, I don't think we need a redirect (though not opposed).Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partially Merge per above reasons regarding lack of notability of list items, i.e. individuals. -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article was also eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LogAntiLog). MER-C 21:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Camille Bunte

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

Fails WP:NMODEL. Coverage that does exist for her is without the middle name usually, and is not nearly enough for GNG or model notability Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NMODEL, as the subject has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions in terms of the modeling industry. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, modeling for notable subjects does not confer notability on the article subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:NMODEL criteria. In addition, this article was apparently created by an undisclosed paid editor in violation of Wikimedia:Terms of Use. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anachronist, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Villante

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Forbes source in the article is probably usable. There is a wedding announcement from 1996 from the NYT. Ignoring WSJ behind paywall, the rest are passing mentions or interviews. The company he founded, YapStone (also created by creator here) is probably notable per BEFORE - the founder seems not at the moment. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete- not notable--Rusf10 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stentorian (band). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanim Sufyani

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

~~Non notable musician. Failure to cite reliable and significant sources which will pass him notability. Mar11 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stentorian (band): he appears to mostly be known for being the lead singer. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting will be better. - Mar11 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator does not propose deletion based on policy. Note that this nominator made multiple similar non-policy-based nominations on this date. If a merge to a similar/overlapping topic is desired, WP:PM is thataway. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal transporter

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

Content appears to overlap with Livestock transportation and is the inferior article. Unsourced since 2006.Coin945 (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: Why not do a WP:PM? Seem to want to merge it with Livestock Transportation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anachronist, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Closets

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

Recreated following previous deletion in April 2017, however current version is claimed to be different (and Deletionpedia version differs substantially, so CSD G4 may not apply). Lack of WP:CORPDEPTH in sourcing. Current article has one good Newsweek source, the rest is PR and trade publications. Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bay Area represent, but yeah, non-notable company with article fueled by primary sources, and zilch found in Google searches. Only time I ever hear of them is their radio commercials. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet Wp:NCORP plus signs of UPE editing are what tips this over the top. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul pluta

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

Already deleted as Paul Pluta. The editor was blocked, now he/she promotes Pluta. Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCREATIVE, and per the comments in the original AfD. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible G11 even: As mentioned, this was previously deleted as Paul Pluta; the current article is gaming the system to pretend not to be the same article, adding a lot of words to make it appear not to meet WP:G4 (there is no substantisive addition to the article vis-a-vis the deleted one, just a lot of sesquipedalian loquaciousness to hide that), and WP:BOMBARDMENT of references that don't actually reference what they're claiming to reference ("predicted the rail fails[ref]", [ref] is about the 'rail fails' themselves). Furthermore this both fails WP:NCREATIVE and, also, is blatantly promotional (note the wording: "One thing is certain, however. Mr. Pluta, by way of his Archie character, is working hard at succeeding at what he claims is now a full time pursuit. And it seems his base of followers is growing.".). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content relating to Queensland Rail into Queensland Rail: OK, he fails WP:CREATIVE, but he has had mainstream newspaper coverage as a railway advocate/whistleblower. See this Google search. But it's arguably one event and could be merged into Queensland Rail. I note that the creator of the article on Paul pluta has been attempting to add content into Queensland Rail about the current problems with Queensland Rail (the Rail Fail) and Paul Pluta's role in predicting it (see diff) but this has been edit-warred away (probably more for style reasons than substance). It would not be unreasonable to mention Pluta's role in the matter (although in a slightly drier style) as we have reliable citations to support it. Kerry (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Queensland Rail, which presently has no mention of the subject and his findings. Essentially a WP:BLP1E situation, but a merge will improve the latter article as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign aid to China

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

This article contains information that is outdated (it focuses on aid up until 2003) and it is lacking citations. In 2010 it was mentioned that it should be updated, but it still contains outdated information.

Based upon the above, I recommend removing the article as it is not helpful or informative. BritishGuy (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many outdated pages here. Please add an appropriate template or change the name (History of foreign aid to China).Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Lightroom CC

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

An unsanctioned content fork of Adobe Lightroom Classic CC that suffers from lack of notability. (The latter formerly held the "Adobe Lightroom" title but was moved as part of the forking.) It is a mistake to create a new article as soon as a developer releases a slightly different edition of the same thing, especially when there isn't sufficient contents to justify it. This certain edition has no independent notability of its own and inherits its notability from the "Adobe Lightroom" topic. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adobe has 2 separate products:

1. "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC"

Version 7.0.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom_Classic_CC

https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom-classic.html

2. "Adobe Lightroom CC"

Version 1.0.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom_CC

https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

The comment above says:

It is a mistake to create a new article as soon as a developer releases a slightly different edition of the same thing, especially when there isn't sufficient contents to justify it.

However this is NOT what has happened. "Adobe Lightroom CC" is NOT a "slightly different edition of the same thing". It is a completely different product to the older "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC".

I would suggest that having 2 pages for the 2 products is the correct way to go, and that the page for the new product "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom_Classic_CC" needs to be expanded.

I have already set the version number, and others should start adding details to the new page.

Geoff Rimmer Gepree (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for three reasons:

First, notability is not inherited, not even by likeness of the name. If they are to be treated as two completely different products, independent notability is required. This is actually very important, because co-branding is a well-known tactic for an unknown product to piggyback the success of a well-known product.
Second, similarity of both name and function of the app is the criteria for the subjects being covered in the same article; hence the split was a mistake. We had such discussions about .NET Core too, which ended up in .NET Framework article. (Both are totally notable.) We had it about Windows 8.1 too, which remained part of Windows 8 article until we had material to justify a new article. (Both are totally notable.) Sometimes, we've had no discussions but the community made the right decision: e.g. Windows Server 2012 R2 is part of the Windows Server 2012 article. (Both are totally notable.)
Third, we do not have enough contents. When an article bristles with contents, a split is justified independent of the notability status. This is not the case here.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for the 2 pages to be merged into a single page, as long as that page contains the following details for the 2 applications:

- the old application:

Name: "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC"

Version 7.0.1

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom-classic.html

- and the new application:

Name: "Adobe Lightroom CC"

Version: 1.0.1

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

Gepree (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

There is no problem with this request. It can be done. We have already done it in Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Flash Player, Skype, OneDrive and many other articles.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Codename Lisa and FleetCommand. New product is not notable enough yet for its own article and can be covered by existing article (maybe this one should be moved to "Adobe Lightroom" or "Adobe Lightroom CC" as its current name "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC" is too specific). Pavlor (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Despite of the name, Lightroom CC is unfortunately by no means neither an update of Lightroom CC 7 (now "Classic") nor a fork, but a completely different re-architectured software (of the same purpose) Adobe calls it on its web-page "all-new" Lightroom CC and a "photo service" - while LR CC Classic still is referred to as an "app". It is not even compatible with Lightroom CC Classic and has less features than LR CC Classic. Also it features a cloud-based database, and not a local folder-based and catalogue-managed image storage. The similarities of Lightroom CC and Lightroom CC Classic is very much like the similarity between Apple Photos and Apple Aperture.

Christiano01, 30th November 2017

Media coverage of the new version I found so far is centered around (and based on) the Adobe announcement (Adobe MAX conference): cnet.com [15], theverge.com [16], techrepublic.com [17] etc. Once there are solid reviews of this new product, stand-alone article will be justified, I think. Pavlor (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't have enough material. WP:SIZERULE. I am surprised why the nominator came here to undo the split. As far as I can read from the policy, she could have acted boldly and remerged. Maybe I do.

There is something else that bothers me too: This Christiano01 account was made yesterday, and seemingly knew about this discussion beforehand. Make no mistake, we welcome new editors. But we are on the watchout to see if they are truly editors or just a one-time meat puppet.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There is not enough RS yet to support new article, which is not even needed as all content can be kept within the older article. Need for possible separate article can be discussed later, when more RS arrive. You are right it makes sense to have both products (which are similar in purpose and name) in one article. As of suspected "meat puppet" issue, both keep (or sort of keep) "votes" have different reasoning: one looks like company position, the other like disgruntled user not happy with the new Adobe product policy (sure, looks like SPA, but even plain IP comments have weight, if these are policy based...). Pavlor (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FleetCommand, in a way, I'm a one-time-editor, that's true. But I'm not a meat-puppet. I have only one account. I swear. Originally I created my account a few weeks ago or so to only update an outdated and slightly misleading Nikon-article. Then I found my environment getting confused with all these Lightrooms, and decided to help clarifying ... . Here is a review on PCmag. Christiano01, 1st December 2017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad you came here and cleared that out. But still, there seems to be a consensus in the favor of merger here, due to lack of material. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Through if we can find more reviews like the PC Mag above, maybe it would be notable. Could also be userfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per same topic (not same software). The main article having it as a former name. Widefox; talk 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotline (Nazia and Zohaib Hassan album)

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

Nothing turns up for the album. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have now added a few sources to establish the album's notability. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - and really the nominator could have added those sources him/herself. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep after two relistings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church of Venice

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be just an ordinary church, which by definition isn't notable. MisfitToys' rationale in the first nomination is no reason to keep, and the lack of evidence for keeping makes me question whether there's any coverage: churches with such a name are hard to get sourcing (it's a rather generic name), and since it's a big-city church founded in the 1940s, it's highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Existing sources do not indicate passage of GNG.--TM 16:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep and redirect First Lutheran School of Venice (a private elementary school) here. And, WP:HEY, Note that the article is now sourced to a handful of WP:INDEPTH, WP:RS articles covering the building's excellent acoustics and use as a classical acoustical music concert venue, and others covering the mural.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the other citations, I'll note that Tony nominee Orson Bean (along with his wife Alley Mills, both longtime members) has starred in a church production of A Christmas Carol for the last 17 years. See this 2015 article and this December 2016 interview. That probably adds a bit to the notability. Feel free to add these or related links to the article. MisfitToys (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- Local churches are not notable per se. They need something exceptional. Notable members is a case of inherited notability (which does not count). Being a regular concert venue might qualify;not sure about the mural. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, coverage of the activities of notable parishioners in WP:RS does contribute to notability, just like any other kind of RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no serious claim to notability as far as churches go. The mural is the the closest thing, and I'm guessing that it's purely of local interest. Everything else is a commonplace for churches. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other topic, individual churches can be notable - or not - depending on what sources say about them, plus...

WP:HEY I sourced coverage of the mural and of the arts programming to WP:RSs, primarily the Los Angeles Times, and added a little material about the church written by comedian and raconteur Orson Bean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's notability doesn't need to explain why a topic is attracting WP:GNG attention, it is sufficient that it does. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual churches don't automatically get an article per WP:GNG, but in this case there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, so it qualifies. Brad v 16:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Döner Kebap

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

A small/medium Polish fast food chain. Coverage limited to trade journals and worse (press release/marketing sources). Seems to fail WP:NORG]. See also WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see your point about coverage limited to trade journals, but with 36 outlets across Poland, I'd say the chain is notable. WP:CORPSPAM redirects to personal essay. Poeticbent talk 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Poeticbent: Having 36 outlets (or 10, or 100) is not a criteria of notability at WP:NORG or WP:GNG. We don't list medium sized companies by default. They need to be, well, notable. Sheer size does not suffice (because it's hard to determine an objective criteria for size). And yes, it is an essay I wrote to illustrate the problem - I could also link WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. few chains this size are notable, and there are insufficient sources to show this is any different. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large enough chain to be notable in its market. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Average of two outlets per Polish voivodeship (province)? It is pretty marginal, most Poles wouldn't never see an outlet, and it is hardly a household name. What do you base your view on? The fact that you copypasted this to/from another AfD where the subject article doesn't even make a claim about its size does not give me confidence about you having carried out any research. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually bothered to look the other chain up. Did you do the same? Please try to WP:AGF! Your comments about copypasting seem anything but. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The closing admin may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bite Submarines, a similar chain with nearly twice as many outlets, where the discussion is currently leaning to delete, when considering the arguments about 'size is enough'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be the one that was closed as no consensus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references provided are listings and routine announcement coverage. A franchise firm going about its business, but I am seeing nothing which indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Winged Blades^Godric 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bona Mugabe

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nyepudzayi Bona Mugabe

Articles for deletion/Bona Mugabe

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

Notwithstanding a few gossipy sources, the subject does not have any claim to notability. She went to college, got married and has a job. What's notable there? Her kinship is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Simply being the daughter of a former Zimbabwean President does not make one notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INVALIDBIO. Ollie231213 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable individual unto herself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was appointed to multiple government offices and received widespread coverage in news sources, both in and outside Zimbabwe.[18][19][20][21] Merely being related to a famous individual does not overrule the fact that she meets the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those cites merely confirm that Bona studied in Hong Kong, and was appointed to the Censorship Board (a low-profile bureaucratic role). What is notable there? WWGB (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually when someone enrolls in a university in Hong Kong, The Daily Telegraph does not write a piece on them, Hong Kong legislators will not call for their enrollment to be reviewed, and students in that person's home country do get beaten up by police while protesting that enrollment. Similarly the fact that her appointment to a relatively low-profile bureaucratic role gets coverage from Voice of America, indicates that the person being appointed is notable, because it's certainly not the position in and of itself that conveys notability. The sources in the article as it stands now clearly show that Bona Mugabe meets WP:GNG. Yes she managed to achieve that through the brutal regime of her father, but she has met it nonetheless. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Petar knight. She has gotten a lot of press coverage. That satisfies GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received enough media attention over a non-trivial period of time to meet GNG. f e minist 10:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantoal coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of equipment used by the Wehrmacht

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

Article is almost an exact copy of List of German military equipment of World War II which covers the topic more thoroughly. Creating a page for just the Wehrmacht would open the door for redundant pages on the SS, Kriegsmarine, and whatever other Nazi German branch that would illustrate pretty much the same thing.--Molestash (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. AfD is the wrong venue. I'm only !voting merge since List of German military equipment of World War II has sub-pages for the navy and air-force, with the actual listing in the article itself being land forces. The topic itself could be notable standalone (and if List of German military equipment of World War II were evolved to link to here and contain a summary - that would be fine too). The list contents (which also includes service dates and pictures for vehicles) are not the same as List of German military equipment of World War II - so a merge would be required in any event. Note that we have lists of equipment for different service branches of other armies - e.g. - List of equipment of the United States Army during World War II, List of weapons of the United States Marine Corps, List of equipment of the United States Army. Different service branches sometimes differ widely in actual kit employed (e.g. - the USMC continues use of the Cobra attack helicopters vs. the army's Apache - and a multitude of other kit differences).Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list seems nicer/more usable than the more general "...military equipment" list, though. Haikon 12:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- The present target refers to "main" articles on the navy and air force. When these are removed, there will be army equipment and missiles (including secret weapons). The difficulty may arise from the American view that treats the navy as military, contrary to the proper meaning of that word, which is derived from miles - Latin for soldier. After merging the army section, it may be useful to convert the present article into a dab-page, though that would require the missiles to be moved to another article. Technically the SS divisions were organisationally not part of the Wehrmacht, but their equipment was probably the same, so that the distinction is insignificant. Posssibly the target should be List of German army equipment of World War II. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, Wehrmacht meant all three services; the Army was the Heer. Now, I realise that in some countries, for bureacratic reasons, the different services were equipped with very different equipment. But in the Wehrmacht we have all three services (plus the SS) all fielding ground troops, and all equipped with the same weapons, ending up with a lot of duplication and not much value. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- List of German military equipment of World War II already exists and is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hawkeye7 and K.e.; redundant and not for one specific branch. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia iGEM Team

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

According to the International Genetically Engineered Machine article there are hundreds of teams competing each year. This team has won a few awards, but I counted over 50 prizes at this page so don't think that makes them particularly notable. A merge would unbalance the main article and given the number of teams a redirect is probably not needed. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete most universities have iGEM teams. This one is not particularly notable. Natureium (talk) 15:12, 29 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) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapna Choudhary

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable performer and folk singer, most of the coverage is about the Bigg Boss TV show which she was a contestant in. There is no inherent notability in being one of 25 participant in a TV show. The article was created by a sock earlier and also deleted a few times with a spelling change of the surname Sapna Chaudhary. FITINDIA 07:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 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) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If nom wishes to delete the other articles, they will need to start a new AfD for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bikinis N Thongs

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

Fails to meet any of the notability criteria for music albums. Minimal coverage in independent, secondary sources on searching either. Jack Frost (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NALBUM. South Nashua (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Fails NALBUM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete despite it fails WP:NALBUMS, just like the other artist's efforts (Big Time, Cenobites LP, Pimp to Eat, Masters Of Illusion, Kool Keith Presents Thee Undatakerz, Diesel Truckers, Nogatco Rd., The Original SoundTrack Album of Project Polaroid, The Return of Dr. Octagon, The Best Kept Secret (Ultramagnetic MCs album), Dr. Dooom 2, Tashan Dorrsett, Teddy Bass Presents El Dorado Driven, The Lost Masters, White Label Mix Series, Vol. 1, The Lost Masters, Vol. 2, Collabs Tape, In High Definition, Sex Style: The Un-Released Archives, The Legend of Tashan Dorrsett, Love and Danger and Feature Magnetic). The artist has his strong fan base, even if his studio albums didn't hit any major music chart or got critically acclaimed. At least, Bikinis N Thongs was acclaimed by American music journalist Robert Christgau. Dat Gee (talk), 6 December 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, if what you are saying is that every one of these albums (including the subject of this AfD) fails WP:NALBUM, and they do not otherwise happen to meet WP:GNG, I wonder if we consider rolling them all into this AfD and subsequently delete the lot of them... --Jack Frost (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article contains links to reliable sources, such as Exclaim!, HipHopDX, iTunes, Robert Christgau and AllMusic, the network also has articles about this album on the OC Weekly,^[1] YouTube, Amazon, Spotify, Google Play Music 'n etc. And, beside some studio albums of Kool Keith discography (I really believe in this part, that only his studio albums are matter), there is a lot of articles, which should be merged or deleted, because of its notability, such as Fire it Up, Forever Everlasting, Vengo a Cobrar, Vintage Curses, etc. Also, it should be borne in mind that some articles are in draft (stub) form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Holmes (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that these qualify as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also, the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF may be of interest. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hadiqa Kiani. Also, in light of this edit. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raaz (album)

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 27 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) 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how to judge the notability of this album, but if not kept, the title should redirect to Hadiqa Kiani. Deli nk (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirection of the now red-linked page, although this is an unlikely search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Cut (Hadiqa Kiani album)

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

Nothing turns up in search. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage at Hadiqa Kiani is sufficient; and there's no need to redirect from a page of this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 27 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) 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how to judge the notability of this album, but if not kept, the title should redirect to Hadiqa Kiani. Deli nk (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Faakhir Mehmood. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jee Chahay

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with article on Faakhir Mehmood. Vorbee (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there's enough coverage in the references in the article; merging to Faakhir Mehmood as an editorial decision would be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Faakhir Mehmood. A search brings up [22] and [23], both of which are in the article, but not much else in terms of coverage in reliable sources. The other two sources in the article provide coverage, but they do not appear to be reliable to establish notability, as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Faakhir Mehmood. Valid search term and in anticipation of the comedy of error that missed to grace this AFD, of a near-similar bunch:) (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aatish (album)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 27 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) 07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Ki Awaz

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable album.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 28 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) 07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Tarang

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

Not much coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have now added a few sources to establish the album's notability. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously? Biggest selling pop album in Indian history, 40 million multi-platinum and it gets AfDed? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not doing WP:BEFORE will surely result in empty "not much coverage found". An album that sold over 40 million worldwide certainly meet WP:NALBUM and the article has been improved –Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haroon (singer). In light of this edit. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Ka Nasha

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 27 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) 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Faakhir Mehmood. In light of this and the comedy of errors. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub to Sohniye

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 27 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) 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Faakhir Mehmood. In light of this edit after a comedy of errors. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra (Faakhir Mehmood album)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 27 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) 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Changing my vote to redirect. Störm (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaina (album)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing related to this album when googling Earnsthearthrob (talk) 22:18, 28 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) 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parastish

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 27 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) 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to redirect. Störm (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eik Tara

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 27 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) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kismat (Zohaib Hassan album)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 27 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) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DWN (Digital Wireless Network)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 27 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) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found one source [24]. Not enough establish notability as far as I'm concerned. ~Kvng (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laut Aao

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 27 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) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:PROD. ansh 666 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IM On Demand

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 27 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) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waqt (song)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a plausible redirect target, and no significant coverage. Created by a blocked user, and the "Pakistani Singles Chart" may not exist; it's definitely unreferenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 27 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) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cable compound

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

If the "Wire Compound and Cable Compound Market Worth 16.42 Billion USD by 2022", then why has this 4-line stub been unsourced since 2006? Let's improve or delete. Coin945 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD is not the place to take articles you want improved. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of programs broadcast by Fox News#Previous programming (with appropriate one-line blurb added in that article); Greta's not at the network any more and this is about as 'paint-by-numbers' of a true crime show as you can get in television news. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Scene (U.S. TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 protein is indeed notable, however, it just appears that the references are not included within the article (but do exist). I recommend that they be added in order to help prevent confusion regarding nomination. DGG sums it up well. The article needs references added (they exist), not deletion. Please do see WP:BEFORE when making nominations. If you have any questions about this or object to my close, please do feel free to message me on my talk page (and please remain civil, I will respond to your message as soon as possible). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CLIP (protein)

AfDs for this article:

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

Dicdef, untouched since 2006. Appears to not meet WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a description of a protein's structure and function is certainly not a dictionary definition. There are reliable papers about these aspects, such as in myeloid leukemia and in MHC antigen processing. CLIP modulates immune responses, sitting in the MHC's peptide binding site. And so forth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs refs but those are just unused, not nonexistent. Text body is fine for a short treatement of a protein. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. aneedsreferences, not deletion. See WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 10:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of the Alps

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

Topic seems notable enough, but entire article has been unsourced since 2006, with no plans anytime soon. I think it should be nuked and rewritten, probably as a section in The Alps. Coin945 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brændstrup

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Doesnt appear to have sister article in Danish Wikipedia which sets alarm bells off. Unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like a real distinct population center to me. [25] Not having an WP article in the language of the location of the topic is not grounds for deletion. I recently created one for a Greek topic that doesn't have an article in Greek WP. --Oakshade (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and well established precedent per WP:PLACEOUTCOMES: populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable, and the village is located here: 55°19′50″N 9°03′25″E / 55.330519°N 9.056850°E / 55.330519; 9.056850. I have cleaned up the article and added a few sources. The village does not have an article on Danish Wikipedia, that's correct, but looking at the list of place names mentioned in da:Rødding Sogn (Vejen Kommune), and Brændstrup is among them, it's obvious that creating stubs for small villages isn't the first priority on da.wp. Sam Sailor 20:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per Sam Sailor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article has since been expanded satisfactorily and the fungicide is indeed notable. Please review WP:BEFORE, just because references are not within an article does not mean that they do not exist/that the subject is non-notable. If you have any questions or concerns about this close, please feel free to message me on my talk page (I will respond as soon as possible; please remain civil). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benzimidazole fungicide

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

One line stub dictionary definition. Abandoned since 2006. Is there more info out there that justifies an entire article? Coin945 (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage in reliable sources such as [26], [27] and [28]. Thiabendazole and benomyl are notable benzimidazole fungicides. This stub can be expanded. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC) I have expanded the article and added sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , probably Speedy keep.References present in article, and a notable class of compounds. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by DGG, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WELSIM

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

Not a notable software product. No sign WP:GNG or any SNG is met, and all sources are primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I cannot understand, some Wikipedia pages use all primary sources but still keep alive. While a newly created WELSIM page with solid evidence including website, government documents, pictures, trademark, and 3rd party links will be deleted. For example, the page of "Abaqus" majorly cites its own website, the first citation of Forbes is even invalid. The page of "JMAG" has totally three citations but two are broken and one refers own website. The page of "JCMsuite" cites many journal papers but cannot be verified unless you have full access to those journal papers. The page of "RFEM" only has two citations which all links to own website. The page of "Quickfield" even does not have the citation at all. I fully understand that spam and fraud should be removed. However, WELSIM is a bona-fide product with solid evidence and can be kept in the Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goeasyon (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

useful；concise；robust — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:77:F8DB:2B14:8D81:B791 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WelSim is a quite useful FEA program, our team uses it for complex structural analysis and get precise solutions.Its affordable price and solid quality can benefit every innovative organization in research and development.A good product and valid brand should be known by the mass through Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.104.3.194 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form. It sort of looks like promotional entry, there is not a single 3rd party reference indicating relevance of the software, so WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associate specialist

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

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines. This article has been unsourced since 2006 and upon a google search I have not found much that expands this beyond a glorified dictionary definition. Coin945 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article. Never heard of it, just a title which stopped getting used. A dicdef probably. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can be defined in another article in just one or two sentences. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ALCO FA#ALCO "World Locomotive". Sandstein 09:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALCO DL500B

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

Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. In addition, unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ALCO. Useful encyclopedic information if you are interested in rail diesel but not notable in its own right. And it is a small but key link between ALCO, NSW rail, and SA rail. Aoziwe (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is standard practice to assume that distinct models of locomototive, just like with automobiles and aircraft, are notable. That said, see below... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, but not to ALCO, rather to ALCO FA#ALCO "World Locomotive", which the DL500B is/was a variant of, and the Australian loco classes tha the DL500 comprised are in fact already mentioned there. @Aoziwe:, would this be a better target for your !vote? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above, without prejudice to create an article on the DL500 series World Locomotive if someone wants to develop that. But there seems to be insufficient material for a separate article on the DL500B. MB 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edward Dorn. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dunbar Dorn

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

Delete: per NOTABILITY and GNG -- fails to meet notability threshold. Quis separabit? 04:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edward Dorn There's enough mentions of her that if the article is deleted, it will be remade. Plus, she was involved with his work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Megalibrarygirl that a redirect to Edward Dorn is most likely appropriate in this case. She was involved with his work and I also agree with the assessment that it may just be remade if deleted. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tercer Grado

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

Film had a film festival run. No box office results, and only one film review presented. No equivalent Spanish Wikipedia article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interpreting the deletion reason given as "no information to give nan indication of notability" , I agree. This seems a minor film without substantial reviews or other substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it does not appear to provide any information which gives an indication of notability. It is lacking in the sourcing that we would normally expect on the English Wikipedia, and those sources do not appear to really exist otherwise (if you can prove me wrong and find reliable sources on this film, I will happily reconsider my !vote/opinion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is listed on Rotten Tomatoes, however, does not have a score. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK1: nominator has withdrawn nomination, no outstanding non-Keep !votes. (Note that the nominator attempted to completely close this themselves, however the templates were improperly formatted and I am, therefore, reclosing.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Álvaro Guião State School

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

School article doesn't show notability on secondary sources independent of the subject. It seems to promote some random person who went to a law school. I can't tell if it is about a secondary education school, a college, a law school or teaching school? No equivalent Portuguese Wikipedia article presented.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Certainly seems to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that precedent and consensus? The talk page is empty and you still haven't provided any news sources that show notability, only WP:BUTITEXISTS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're unaware of the hundreds of AfDs that have led to the consensus that secondary schools are notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:NHS so where can it apply? The article doesn't discuss the school. It just mentions some random person who could be an alumus? a teacher? It isn't clear at all. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you determine which school it is supposed to reference: Instituto de Educação Dr. Álvaro Guião or Escola Estadual Álvaro Guião ? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've determined it is Escola Estadual Álvaro Guião, and found the Portuguese article so this is sufficient to close off this AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Hope

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

No claim of notability. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or any other SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat notable, an emmy nominee and son of an oscar winner. Subuey (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Subuey: being a relative of a notable person wouldn't be sufficient, per WP:NOTINHERITED. With regard to the Oscar nominations, could you elaborate? There's nothing about this in the article, and it might help us decide whether this is sufficient to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can look it up, just look up "emmy", not "oscar", I made a mistake. Subuey (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he's been nominated twice for Emmies: both nominations were for Outstanding Sound Editing for a Miniseries or a Special. Both nominations were for a group of twelve, rather than as a single artiste, so I'm still not convinced this is enough to pass GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a run-of-th-mill industry journeyman. His credits on IMDB are extensive, but as nominator points out nothing turns up when trying to locate independent, third party coverage that would indicate stand out notability. His Emmy nominations were as part of a team of a dozen people working in the Sound Department in various capacities. I agree with the above comment that that is not enough stand alone recognition. Had he actually won, perhaps it could be a stronger argument, but I still think it comes up short. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I am concerned about the tendency to want articles on subjects who are notable in their own field, for example the Fandango biography, to be deleted. Subuey (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Whatever his father did is irrelevant. --Rusf10 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This falls under WP:CREATIVE, and I cannot see which inclusion criterion would be met, although he has numerous film credits spanning his career, according to IMDB. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could benefit from editing and some more content. He was clearly notable enough in his profession to warrant an obituary in Variety. 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm bothered by the notion that just because someone gets an obituary in a notable publication, they are suddenly notable even though they didn't merit an article here while alive. It's almost like a WP:1EVENT, becoming notable simply due to passing. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary does not establish notability (regardless of the publication in which it appeared). Even the most unotable people still get obituaries.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the references meet the standard set at GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Being a "member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Motion Picture Editors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians" is an insufficient claim of significance, and there's nothing better. Reads like a memorial page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Manhattan Transfer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Dickins

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

Contested prod. Briefly a member of the Manhattan Transfer years before they became famous and that's basically it. Immigrant laborer (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if she had been part of the group at their height of notability, that would not gaurantee she was indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Manhattan Transfer. As a founding member, already discussed in the group article, a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Manhattan Transfer -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cryptocurrency has since been covered by multiple reliable sources and does indeed satisfy GNG. If you have any issue with this close, please do feel free to message me on my talk page (I will respond as soon as I can; please also remain civil). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petro (cryptocurrency)

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

primarily by WP:CRYSTAL. An announcement by Maduro is not an actual crypto-currency. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I didn't see this when I created Petro (currency), so I'll redirect to here. Anyway, Keep; there is enough coverage already to satisfy WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cryptocurrency has attracted three news articles in the short time since it's been announced. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To be pedantic, the announcement of the cryptocurrency has attracted three news articles. I see no sign that the cryptocurrency itself exists; does it have any value? Can it be used in shops? Is it being crypto-mined? The BBC says He gave no details on how, or when, the new currency would be launched. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, a lot more than three, but the others merely covered the same points as the ones cited. And your comment is a fair point; however, something does not necessarily have to exist in order to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a couple of years ago there was a similar project called the Bolivar Coin, I think this could be included along with other countries proposals to start a cryptocurrency. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This might be yet another phenomenon characteristic of Bolivarianism (present-day Venezuela). --Fadesga (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious keep because of national importance. Störm (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CYRSTAL means there's scarce information from RS such that the article contain substantial unsourced and speculative information, but this is clearly not the as a subject covered by our worldwide- respected sources BBC, Reuters, NYT, –Ammarpad (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notorious. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as enough reporting to satisfy WP:GNG. --RaviC (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all into Punk-O-Rama. bd2412 T 04:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punk-O-Rama (album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Punk-O-Rama (album) (2nd nomination)

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

Run-of-the mill compilation sampler album series that fails WP:GNG.

Please see the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation.

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion because of similar issues – basically due to failing the WP:GNG criteria for notability:

Footnote: If all these articles are deleted, then Category:Punk-O-Rama albums should also be deleted, as it will be empty.

My previous nomination for deletion of these articles, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation, was closed with a suggestion to break up the proposed deletion list into smaller groups. This is the second of those groups. None of the articles have been improved since that deletion discussion, in which most participants (including myself) expressed the opinion that these articles should be deleted, and the primary objection (expressed by two participants) was procedural – based on the idea that too many articles of different types were grouped into a single deletion nomination. This new nomination should rectify that.

Punk-O-Rama Vol. 2, a.k.a. the 1997 Warped Tour Compilation (per the {{Warped Tour}} template content), cites only a self-published dead link from the record company and a four-sentence comment on Allmusic. It contains only basic track listing information an unsourced comment about the price of the album and unsourced comments about the previous release of certain tracks.
Punk-O-Rama (album), Punk-O-Rama III, Punk-O-Rama 4, Punk-O-Rama 2001, Vol. 6, Punk-O-Rama 7, Punk-O-Rama 8, Punk-O-Rama Vol. 9, and Punk-O-Rama 10 have basically identical characteristics as for Punk-O-Rama Vol. 2.
Punk-O-Rama 5 cites only two self-published sentences from the record company and a one-paragraph Allmusic blurb.
Punk-O-Rama cites only a self-published statement from the record company that says the series is defunct.
Unsound (compilation album) cites the same self-published statement from the record company that says the previous series is defunct. It contains no evidence that the newer series, which was discontinued after just one release, achieved any greater degree of notability.

—BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep.
1. By putting all these different pages together it seems to force users here into an "all or nothing" choice.
2. As always, notability is in the eye of the beholder, and while we have certain standards, an article for deletion request means the burden rests on the nominator to assert why something is not notable, which means going further than simply saying "does not pass". The nominator must explain why they believe it is not notable.
3.furthermore, it's good policy for people who wish to remove information from a global encyclopedia to at least be familiar with the topic at hand. How can someone say something is not notable if they do not know the topic? Are you familiar with the American Punk scene?
4. If someone was to examine this nomination thoroughly, they would see that the second to last link you have added to the list is Punk-O-Rama. This, unlike the others is not an album, but a description of the entire series. To have made a top level nomination for an album and then put the page for the entire series in the list of things to delete, is not good form and goes against procedure. It would be like someone pointing out that a page for a Pokemon is not notable in itself, and then adding Pokemon to the AFD nom. regardless whether Punk-O-Rama is appropriate for inclusion here, it must have it's own AFD and cannot be lumped in with others.
5. So there are in fact two questions here: A. Are the individual Punk O Rama albums valid topics? B. Is the Punk O Rama series a valid topic?
6.If the answer to A and B is no. Then seperate nominations must be made. If the answer to A and B is Yes, then we should keep. If the answer to A is no and B is yes, then the contents of should be merged with B.
7. As someone who considers themselves into turn of the century Punk music, I'm definitely aware of the Punk O Rama albums and they seemed quite ubiquitous to me. Are they notable to the American/UK Punk scene? undoubtedly. I do not know, but it would be interesting to see sales etc. The fact that the series lasted for so long and had over 80 bands on it, surely plays in their favour. More research needed I think.
8. As if by magic, the second Page of a quick google search turns up this article on AVclub, an article entitled "Punk-o-Rama captured and killed the 90s pop punk boom" ^[2].

Let's hold the horses on this one Egaoblai (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Regarding item 2, notability is not really a matter of "the eye of the beholder" – it is established by such criteria as having in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see WP:GNG). These articles don't show that, and don't contain any assertion that the topics are notable (e.g., significant awards given for an album or high sales). Regarding some of the other comments, I don't believe it is necessary to have separate nominations in order to have separate outcomes – we can decide to keep one or more of these articles without keeping all of them, despite them having been nominated for deletion together. You seem to think that the Punk-O-Rama article should be kept. Currently that article is very poorly sourced and contains no indication of notability. It cites only a self-published statement saying that the compilation series has been discontinued, and a self-published dead link. I acknowledge that I should have listed that one first instead of late in the list – that is an artifact of the way the nomination was developed. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one article- Individual albums do not seem notable as per Wikipedia:NALBUM. However I can see an argument for an article about a long-running series of compilation albums, so I would merge into one article (and we can loose all the track listings to save space).--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as one article per Rusf10. Also, there's no need to indicate individual notability of those compilation albums, especially which may individually fail to meet GNG but are still part of the notable album compilation series. George Ho (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can all be merged into Punk-O-Rama, which should then be kept. PPP (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ali Azmat. No referenced content so there is nothing mergeable. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Circus (album)

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Ali Azmat. Vorbee (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star/Boom Boom

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced since creation >10 years ago, and no sources seem available (at least under the English title). Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have now added a few sources to establish the album's notability. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these references do not succeed in establishing notability. Gopal and Moorti (2008) is a passing mention not even comprising a full sentence. Discogs is user-generated content and not a WP:RS. The AllMusic link is malformed and returns a 404 error but even the correct artist link neither mentions this album nor lists it in the artist discography. The India Today link is just to the magazine's Google Books page and has no indication of any issue or article about this album. None of these are in any way significant. The only reference that may not be is Sheikh (2012) and that is a mere three sentences. To satisfy WP:NMUSIC, the phrase "...but the album was successful..." in Sheikh needs both qualification and verification. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of these issues. What about now? Maestro2016 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maestro2016:, I suggest you read this essay which discusses the practice of "reference bombing," which is similar to what you've done with this article. In short: adding multiple poor references tends to be detrimental to, rather than positive for, the case in retaining an article. In linking to reference bombing, I want to make it very clear that I am not accusing you of bad-faith editing such as attempting to conceal anything but rather that having many poor or passing references tends to strengthen the impression of non-notability. That is, if such obvious diligent attempts to substantiate notability are only finding cites of this quality, it is probably has not ...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...

In particular, Apple Music download links are not WP:RS, not being independent (they are trying to sell you the album, after all). Hub and Jeffries (2003) suffer the same issue as Gopal and Moorti (2008) mentioned above and the India Today reference remains unverifiable. I tried to independently verify the article reference you gave and, despite having access to professional and academic article databases, cannot find it. The quote you added seems to indicate that this was a contemporary album review, but even that requires verification. I hope this helps explain my views. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The India Today reference can be verified through Google. As for Discogs and Apple Music, I was unaware they were unreliable sources. In that case, I'll remove the Apple Music reference. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose absolutely not. A rather poor nomination if I may say so. One problem that should have been picked up is that there is reference to the album under the name Boom Boom alone, for which there are plentiful book sources. We haven't even started to look for Urdu sources, which are completely legitimate on en.wp when English sources lack. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reference are fixed and they satisfy GNG. The reference used are reputable papers and I can say the content is not trivial, in addition there might be non English sources since its not their main language. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to Paranormal City. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kevlin Ryan

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

Article exists under Paranormal City and I have tried to redirect to Paranormal City; however, editor has surpassed the WP:3RR rule reverting my and another editor's redirection. The individual appears to be better know under the name Paranormal City; hence the redirection to Paranormal City. Regardless, two articles are not necessary. reddogsix (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in one way or the other, probably to Paranormal City, but either way, we only need one article on this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and Johnpacklambert. If the subject's "acting career" section can be cited (it currently isn't), then I'd personally advocate making Mark Kevlin Ryan the target of the redirect. As this title may be better placed to cover "both". Whatever the target of the merge/redirect, as noted, there is absolutely no reason to have two articles covering substantively the same subject. Per WP:MERGEREASON. (Once merged, a separate review of the cites, COI and tonal issues might be appropriate). Guliolopez (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything mergeable to Paranormal City and redirect the title. As already said above we will have only one article about him, even the existing article has multiple tags. But the newbie editor either want change the name or want to make two separate articles per edit summary. If he however want only name change he can do so later at RM, for two articles that's outright No–Ammarpad (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Paranormal City per Ammarpad. A quick Google search appears to show that Ryan's middle name is "Kelvin" rather than "Kevlin", so if redirects are created, it may be necessary to do so for both spellings (and probably an entry in the Mark Ryan disambiguation page). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - The non-Wikipedia Paranormal City band page page lists the correct spelling as "Mark Kelvin Ryan". reddogsix (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Basically a duplicate of Paranormal City. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm gonna go out on a limb here and !vote delete because as far as I can tell, neither the band nor the person are notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Chrissymad has now proposed Paranormal City for deletion, shall we bundle the proposal and continue the discussion there, so that all the discussion is in one place? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Milner

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

WP:BLP of a former television personality, "referenced" only to her archived former staff bio on the website of her own employer and not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about her. Having a staff bio on the website of the company you work for, however, is not a notability pass: a person has to be the subject of coverage in sources she doesn't work for to pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only 3rd party ref I can find is [29], a long article in the Toronto Star about her home decorating skills , completely irrelevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, DGG, and that my searches turned up nothing further. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Cameron

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

Not enough WP:RS verifies WP:V the general notability WP:GNG of this fictional character. Most sources deal the with the House show and character mentions are trivial WP:TRIVIAL. Therefore this subject may be unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep run-of-the-mill WP:BEFORE failure: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and so forth. GNG met, article needs to be improved, etc. Jclemens (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not normally comment on discussions about fictitious characters, but thought I may as well. I believe this to also be potentially a WP:BEFORE failure per the above, the article needs improvement rather than deletion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Jclemens' argument is compelling; there appears to be ample literature available in reliable sources about this subject to write a decent Wikipedia about it. Notability is satisfied. Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaziabad (Mayoral Constituency)

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

Found a similar article the other day. The winner of this constituency would fail NPOL, so it's unclear how this meets muster. Possible redirect to Ghaziabad could work, but redirect probably not needed. South Nashua (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my first option. I don't think the title is a plausible search term, for a redirect to work here (searching for "Ghaziabad" AND "Mayoral constituency" on Google got me 18 unique links). Whether the candidate of the constituency fails NPOL or not (that's another discussion), in my opinion this one-line article does not pass muster editorially. Ghaziabad already exists and even contains details of the entitled mayor. We can safely delete this article. Lourdes 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no such thing as "mayoral constituency" in India. We have mayors for cities/towns and they are the heads of the civic body. Most mayors are not well known and are usually low profile as compared to the MLA or MP. I also have no idea where the details for the number of voters came from. --DreamLinker (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson's Lab

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

Non-notable company with citations to press releases. The three Chinese references are basically identical company descriptions that appear to be directory entries. I couldn't find coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH, although I may not be interpreting foreign-language sources properly. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep;It has a good source. Qipamenghuan (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Qipamenghuan: Where? I haven't seen a good source. Would you, as the author of the article, please point it out, and explain why it's a good source? Bear in mind that we need multiple good sources that are independent. The Chinese ones are all nearly identical, and the English one is a press release (written by the company) so it isn't a good source. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't pass notability. Natureium (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks substantial third-party coverage. Rentier (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nancy E. Krulik. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kazoo

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

Redirect: This article seems to fail WP:GNG, as it only has very minor coverage in reliable sources (usually consisting of a mention of its name or of the book list). I have found one source that significantly covers the article's topic (this source), but that may not be a reliable source; additionally, it is the only source that I have found that significantly covers the article's topic. As such, I propose that the article be blanked and redirected to Nancy E. Krulik—the author of the book series that this article covers—as the Nancy E. Krulik article is notable and contains any notable information from the Katie Kazoo article (the book series name and book list). Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nancy E. Krulik It is one of her most notable book series, but there's like over 30 books and the bibliography on the author article lists all the books anyway so there's not much content to copy over. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Prichard

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

Executive who fails WP:BIO. Failed draft in WP:AFC moved into mainspace after failing review. No indication of notability. scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really need to make it so articles in AfC have to actually pass to be turned into mainspace articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know nothing about Prichard and I've never seen the article before. I clicked on the link labeled "news" as part of the AfD header and found the following sources on the first page of listings. There was "Skip Prichard Named OCLC President and CEO " from Information Today, Inc. from back in 2013, and both "Q&A: Skip Prichard: OCLC chief invested in sharing knowledge, leadership skills", from The Columbus Dispatch and "ALA 2017 Spotlight: Four Questions with Skip Prichard", from Publishers Weekly from this month. Sources in the article, such as "An Interview with Skip Prichard" in American Libraries, only add to the breadth of reliable and verifiable, in-depth sources about Prichard. I'm sure that the nominator and the participant who voted to delete are justifiably irked that this article didn't properly graduate through the AfC process, again one I know nothing about. But the claim of notability as head of OCLC and the ample sources about the subject in the article and available to be added all meet and surpass the notability standard. It's not clear, given how trivially I found these sources, that the bare minimum requirements of WP:BEFORE to search for sources was met by the nominator. I hope that both Scope creep and Johnpacklambert will withdraw this AfD and / or reconsider their votes, or at least offer a more meaningful justification for deletion than the issue of a "[f]ailed draft in WP:AFC moved into mainspace after failing review" in the face of the ample sources identified. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alansohn, The reason I Afd's him, was I thought he was non notable. All the sources you have provided are interviews and press releases. The information today article, says In the press release, Prichard says, That is a press release. They are not news, and are not secondary sources. They are a mixture of Q and A for the sellling his book, press releases and interviews, which fails qualify. scope_creep (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The source Skip Prichard Named OCLC President and CEO is broader than a press release or an interview. It is a news report – from a news outlet that is respectable enough to have its own Wikipedia article – giving significant coverage of the subject. Interviews are a perfectly acceptable source for establishing notability as long as they appear in a reliable source. It is not unusual for news outlets to base an article on a press release, but when they research the subject and provide more coverage than a simple regurgitation of the release, we have to take into account the reputation of the news outlet and its editorial function in fact-checking. From our article on Information Today, Inc., there is real evidence that the publication is "widely cited by information professionals" in its field, meeting our expectations of a reliable source. I don't agree that you can dismiss this source as "fails qualify" on a your interpretation of our sourcing policies, and if you disagree with a source's reliablity, we have the WP:RSN where you can get more opinions. That should have been part of WP:BEFORE in this case. --RexxS (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just as a side note Infotoday lists at the bottom of the article you provided some sponsored links and the very first one is " The OCLC Next blog provides insight about work being done by and for libraries worldwide." I think this may mean that we can question the independent nature of this source as the article is in-depth coverage of the CEO of a company that pays to have its blog in this source. I would also point out that the person who created this article, who I have been told on my talk page is a librarian, has been adding a lot of external links to the collections in Wayne State University Libraries (which is very much in line with the WP:GLAM project so no problem there I think). The dean of this organisation is quoted in your source as having written an open letter in support of Prichard. I am not suggesting that there is anything underhand going on but there may be a small COI issue that may need some disclosure from the article creator. Domdeparis (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Historical note -- the OCLC Next Blog was launched in February 2016 (the Information Today note you are referring to is I think from 2013). Also the dean of libraries at Wayne State University retired last year and a new dean came in 2017. And in any case saying that a librarian has a conflict of interest because her bosses boss (or even bosses bosses boss....) has written a letter of support for an individual seems like a bit of a stretch? The article has at this point had contributions well beyond that of the original editor. (Noting here my own CIO) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrilee (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:GNG for me - the "ample sources identified" by Alansohn are only marginally-above-routine coverage in trade journals (librarian) and local newspapers (Ohio, where OCLC is based). Meanwhile, "leadership blogger" in the lede and a yet-to-be-published book in the "Publications" section scream WP:SPAM. That this article was pushed into mainspace just 2 months before the book's release date (6 February 2018) can only make one ponder. Wikipedia is no WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets GNG. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that the article was "moved into mainspace after failing review" is false. It was reviewed, by User:Brock-brac, and as a result, moved to article space. I concur with that action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my role at WMF I run The Wikipedia Library and OCLC is a major partner of ours, so take this strong conflict of interest declaration as you must (with a huge grain of salt, perhaps). OCLC is the largest library organization in the world and Prichard has been a leading figure in the publishing world for well over a decade. Skip has been featured in the leading industry publications: American Libraries Magazine (twice), Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, Information Today, and Book Expo America (C-SPAN). Outside of these leading library publications, Harvard Business Review wrote of his prominent social profile:
"Many social CEOs aren’t social just because they have a company to run; they see value in being social in every aspect of their lives. They care about more than the bottom line. They give back, they mentor, and they care about real social issues that have nothing to do with Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. We refer to those who act consistently in a collaborative, generous way as “relentless givers.” They constantly share what they know, connect others and — often for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do — they do good. One standout example is OCLC’s Skip Prichard, who blogs on leadership and shares insights from his favorite authors." Take this information as you will. With my admittedly close connection to OCLC, I have a hard time seeing how its very visible and influential CEO is not notable. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prichard served as VP of LexisNexis, president and CEO of ProQuest and pres. and CEO of Ingram, all 3 very large companies in the information industry. Above that, Prichard is a gifted speaker, who also writes enthusiastically about leadership and information technology. You know what's strange? That this longtime publishing innovator (dixit Publishers Weekly) didn't get a Wiki article five years ago. Vysotsky (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vysotsky and others. CEO of OCLC alone is a very big deal, this is a leader in his field. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You're kidding, right? OCLC is second only to the Library of Congress in its importance to libraries in the US. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find that the leaders in their field tend to be covered more in the relevant trade press, professional journals and the like, given the preference of the mainstream media to focus on politics, sport and "celebrities" and a preference for stories about how people fail or do bad things (the sensational) rather than how they achieve or do good things. So we have to look at reliable sources relative to the subject matter as per WP:RSCONTEXT. Kerry (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be conflating the importance of the OCLC with the man. Notability is not inherited. Indeed, so far I have been offered a mixture of trade papers entries, interviews and press releases. Wikipedia deals in evidence, WP:BIO in instance, and WP:V. Gamaliel, Montanabw, where is your evidence. OCLC is second only to the Library of Congress isn't a rationale for WP:AFD. We deal in the physical actualite, the real acutialite. Not social comments, merely designed to add the voice. Where is the evidence? Vysotsky being a CEO is not automatically notable, and that doesn't make him notable. Size doesn't confer notablity. Source, evidence of presence, second and tertiary sources that are verifiable. Andy Mabbett, that secondary information provided on the WP:AFD reason. If you look at the talk page of WP:AFC, I argued for User:Brock-brac, to move on, and consider it a simple mistake. The reason it failed WP:AFC, was because it had no valid references. It strong enough to not fail WP:AFD. We must provide evidence that an bio articles subject is notable, otherwise it breaks both the Spirit and the Letter of Wikipedia. It can rely simple conjecture, he's cool, he is really, lets put in, because he runs the OCLC, which is a partner organization of WMF. We need real source. Real verifiable information. Not emotion. So far the references offered are routine coverage in trade journals. They need to be stronger than that. Ocaasi find sources that satisfy WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to be slightly less patronizing and mansplaining to a group of people who have 60+ years combined of experience editing Wikipedia? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagree. My keep was twofold. Of course "being a CEO is not automatically notable". But Pritchard is interesting because of the combination of having been a CEO of 3 companies in the information field (which in my opinion would suffice in this case) and because of his long-term view and his ability to reflect upon his field, for a general audience. Sources? Gosh, Publishers Weekly is not exactly the new kid on the block. Vysotsky (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kerry, that is entirely subjective, no research has been done on it by WP, and can't be proven. Your statement smacks of emotion not reason, without any real evidence to support it, perhaps to support a desire for a keep vote, in this instance, where there is no evidence to satisfy WP:BIO. From my evidence, which is also subjective, most CEO's tend to makes waves, in one area or another, even in fairly obscure industries like Library Science. It is worth commenting Vysotsky, it is curious, he didn't get an article five years ago, but an article has automagically appeared, even though it was rejected at WP:AFC, 31 days before his book is out. If that is not mercenary advertising, which breaks WP:ADVERTISING, I don't know what is. User:Cunard is excellent at finding sources.scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- scope_creep, you have had your chance to put your opinion as nominator and have (by starting this AfD) invited others to expresss their views. The reason to have a discussion is because things are rarely black-and-white and there is need for each of us to exercise our judgement in good faith. I would draw your attention to policy on AfD discussions, specifically the advice to "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool". As a piece of practical emotional intelligence, if you don't show respect for other people's point of view, it will likely strengthen people's resolve against your position (regardless of its merits). Kerry (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Obscure industries". There are more libraries than McDonald's or Starbucks in the US, chief. Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article was started in June.... Merrilee (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, Vysotsky taking it as read that PW, and Info Today are valid primary sources per arguments as they have articles, although it doesn't look it, where is the secondary sources? All your arguments are based on the fact that he is out there, and everbody knows him, and he's a good guy, where is the evidence to back it up? scope_creep (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're going to have to work out the difference between primary and secondary sources for biographies. A quality news article on a person or a book about them has passed through a process of editorial review. We rely on independent publishers that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to offer us the reliability we need to write articles. A reporter's notes may well be a primary source for some events in a person's life, but the published article itself, having been subject to editorial scrutiny is a step removed and meets what we are looking for in a secondary source – see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for our guidelines on that. Examine a few contemporary biographies and see how much of them is sourced to coverage similar to what you're objecting to. Look at biographies of deceased individuals – you'll often find that short bios are almost invariably sourced to obituaries in the quality press. You may also consider the essay Wikipedia:Interviews to gain further insight to how these sort of news sources are used by editors for Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry folks, I was a bit bolshie. I thought the article was created recently. I never realized it created a few months ago. scope_creep (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is mind boggling that the person who was CEO of two prominent companies in the publishing/library world, and is currently the head of the most prominent libraries organization in the US (outside of government) is described as "completely non notable" [36]. That characterization is so stunningly poor that the rest of the critique is easily dismissed, including saying there is "no indication of notability." [37] There are plenty of sources given including sources prominent in the field, mainstream newspapers and Harvard Business Review. Also, out of thin air, phantom policies like "notability is not inherited" have been put forth. Ever since Wikipedia was started, we have always considered the position or title of a person as a signal of notability and we continue to do so. [38] [39] Is this article in great shape and is the prose consistent with what we'd like to see? No. But that's not the point of AfD and notability. Instead of being punitive and vindictive, let the article exist and let folks improve it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article are enough to establish notability, as you'd expect for the head of such a notable organisation. – Joe (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having personal information is not a reason for an AFD nomination. No valid reason for an AFD was given. Nominator is directed to Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects for more information. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Odabash

AfDs for this article:

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

I created this article originally regarding her business - however the article details information on her personal life now which she does not want on there. Rather than listing personal details about the designer can we remove them and create a more company focused bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaPfifer (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is information that should not be public, please see Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects for the best ways to contact Wikipedia in a way that allows us to deal with this. The mere fact that the subject does not wish things to appear in the article is not necessarily a reason for deletion, though. In any case, I have removed the "early life" section, which did not seem relevant (but sources for the date of birth might be re-used if it continues to be a point of disagreement with editors). —Kusma (t·c) 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The subject seems significantly notable, per my rudimentary research. Anyway, the nominator is not arguing for deletion of the article, but purely for deletion of certain sections. While I would prefer a humane approach in BLPs, the current state of this BLP is acceptable, especially after Kusma's edits. Lourdes 16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, as even the most cursory search shows. Looking at NinaPfifer's contributions, the text of the article they created in 2007, and the statement "the article details information on her personal life now which she does not want on there", we can reasonably infer that this editor at least has a conflict of interest, and may well be a paid editor. The 2007 article was about Odabash, and was a promotional hagiography. As an interesting aside, the 2007 article had her born in 1967, later versions had 1970, and various editors since have tried to maintain this 1970 fiction, even though she was actually born in 1964. Edwardx (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Huffington Post: 13 Reasons Why We Will Live Longer Than Our Parents

[2] [Financial Times Pensions Expert: A scheme guide to changing longevity risk

[3] Next Avenue, Why We Should Look Forward To Living To 120 And Beyond

[4] New Scientist

[5] ttp://www.ocweekly.com/music/10-questions-with-kool-keith-6577339

[6] ttps://music.avclub.com/punk-o-rama-captured-and-killed-the-90s-pop-punk-boom-1798264964

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records}} --><!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Dwyer}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfest}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfest}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Westerheide}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moises Gutierrez}}