Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncletomwood (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 27 April 2017 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Bhatia. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 26 April 28 April >

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 keep. The delete arguments are in part based on the false premise that "Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons", when that isn't the standard, coverage from reliable sources is. It doesn't matter so much what he has done, as someone else points out, but instead about how many WP:RSs talk about him. This doesn't mean what he has done is noteworthy, only that he is noteworthy for having done it, demonstrated by the briefness of the article. There have been enough sources provided just within this AFD to strengthen the arguments that this individual passes the bar of WP:GNG, giving strong credibility to the keep arguments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Bhatia

Gaurav Bhatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mere member of a party Uncletomwood (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lets not confuse "notable person who also happen to be spokesperson" and "a person whose alleged notability is being a spokesperson". I randomly checked a few in Cat:Spokespersons, and they fall in the former. Vanamonde lists some reasons. Another is the WP:SPIP guideline. Others should write about this person for who he or she is or has done, not what he or she communicates on behalf of the organization who pays him to say so on their behalf. If being a representative of another organization and spokesperson alone qualifies for notability, millions of lawyers, talk show attendants, tradeshow hosts and press reps from around the world will qualify in Cat:Spokespersons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NDTV article I link to above states that "Bhatia... has been the SP's face on national television for many years." Uttar Pradesh is "the most populous state in the Republic of India as well as the most populous country subdivision in the world. The state, located in the northern region of the Indian subcontinent, has over 200 million inhabitants." So if NDTV is correct -- and I know no reason for it not to be -- then we're looking at notability on a massive scale. His change of parties spawned multiple news stories. And, we're not going to have articles on "millions of lawyers" and others who merely are "merely representatives" -- unless they're notable. I won't bludgeon here, I've no particular interest in keeping this, over and above the fact that he's apparently a notable Indian media and political figure, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/gaurav-bhatia-is-honorary-secretary-to-sc-bar-again/articleshow/56016313.cms
  2. ^ http://www.scbaindia.org/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as a spokesperson, he is going to get a lot of mentions of his name. It doesn't mean he has actually done anything notable, other than recite what he has been told to recite etc by the party leadership. I can't see any notability which really extends beyond the level of a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I will add that changing party allegiance is almost a rite of passage in Indian politics. It means nothing much and there are quite a few instances of people changing allegiance five or more times, and sometimes ending up back where they started. That's just the way it is. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He is a prominent panelist in regular political news shows. He is also Secretary for Supreme Court Bar Association. Too many google results of different events to imply GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he was also Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh until recently, which is a public office [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Arschin

Dana Arschin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NJOURNALIST. The emmy award was not an individual award but one for a broadcast of which she was part of the 11 person team. fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 12 sources provided 6 are self-published, 1 (daily dot) just says "Editors of News 12 and the reporter, Dana Arschin, who claims to be a “Holocaust Educator,” did not return our requests for comment" and nothing else about her. NYIT is her Alma Marta and so not independent. 1 (greatneckrecord) doesn't mention her but her name appears in a caption for a photo. Another (Brooklyn eagle) is about a business park and not about her and just gives a passing mention at the end of the article. 1 is a podcast from a private college and the last is the list of winners of the NY Emmys that I added myself to clarify the claim of being an Emmy-winning journalist. This is clearly a puff piece for a non-notable young journalist. Domdeparis (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep For now at least. She is young and there are quite a few reliable sources that specifically mentions her, or is about her. Not including the plethora of reports by her that come up during the Google News search with her name.--Contactpage (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now at least. Dearth of coverage about her. Google hits for her reports don't fill the need for independent sourcing. May she one day be notable, but is not now. Dlohcierekim
Comment: There are also many Google hits for her videos. Indeed Google hits for her overabundance of reports don't fill the need for independent sourcing, but do provide basis for citation, making her notable another way. BTW independent sourcings do exist --Contactpage (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC) boldly going where Domdeparis has gone before. Dlohcierekim 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please don't hesitate to cite them here and add them to the article it would help to decide the outcome. Domdeparis (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Barely enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, the reason I would say keep is there is probably a lot of tv broadcasts that could be used as sources if they could be made available online. I know this argument is a little WP:CRYSTALy but the sources online seem to just be a shadow of the information on this person released to the public. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I saw her on TV many times.--Pediaorg (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mean to be rude but that has to be the lamest argument in an Afd discussion I have ever seen...Domdeparis (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Having seen someone on TV does not signify notability. Dlohcierekim 21:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Enough reliable sources to justify notability, and also her work is significant enough to be covered in highly esteemed magazines/journals.--U2t5h6c9 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)— U2t5h6c9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
!votes struck as all were sockpuppets of the same account that created the page and have been blocked indefinately here. I hope this is appropriate Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Jaycee

Camp Jaycee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local organization that fails the WP:AUD test of notability (organizations and companies). Searches of the usual Google types, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest did not return any significant coverage in independent reliable sources more than ten miles from the camp. (Note that there are camps of the same name elsewhere, such as New Jersey and Virginia, operated by other organizations.) --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 27 April 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. Some of this content can be added about this to the ROTS article provided there are reliable sources backing it up. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise

The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a section of script from the Star Wars film. WP:NOTPLOT is the closest reason I could find for deletion Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing Successful Programmes

Managing Successful Programmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable government program. No context, notability unlikely even if external sources were available South Nashua (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. when youve seen the scene you've seen the scene. ditto. use it-- chad c mulligan. Er, I mean it's a non-notable government thing that doesn't even need a redirect. Just nothing to get a grip on. Dlohcierekim 21:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Hall

Indy Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE shows insufficient sources to meet notability criteria. Redirect suggested by A7 decliner is implausible. Waggie (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, MrX, how many of those sources are a) based outside of Philly, and b) actually talking about Indy Hall, and not just mention that something happened there? Primefac (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't count them, but I did provide a link. There are enough sources to extract information for at least a small article. [1][2][3][4]- MrX 18:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MrX Those are rather lackluster sources. 1 is a paragraph that briefly mentions the owner saying something. 2 is a non-notable book that doesn't exactly provide coverage. And the other two are local coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I hope no one expects me to make heroic efforts to save this article. I'm already overinvested.- MrX 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MrX, thank you for sharing your vote and the Google Search link. I performed this Google Search as part of my WP:BEFORE, and just reviewed it again as due diligence. I see a lot of passing mentions, interviews, local-only coverage, and thinly disguised blogs on job sites. I just don't see anything beyond what the article has already, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Waggie (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Coworking – Meets WP:GNG, although perhaps on a weaker level, and meets WP:AUD, but a merge would benefit the Coworking article as well. If kept, this short article would benefit from expansion; at this time the article has no claim of significance. See below for some source examples. North America1000 03:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to encourage additional participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Voice

Socialist Voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found for this political website. Tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delanie Fitzpatrick

Delanie Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fitzpatrick has not received anywhere near the coverage needed to pass GNG. Her roles are in two closely related productions, and not all that significant, so I don't think it is enough to meet our entertainer guidelines. She essentially was a small time child actress who did not continue on acting when she reached adulthood. This is not the stuff of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Réjean Gaudreault

Réjean Gaudreault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the mayor of a city which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. A smalltown mayor could potentially still get into Wikipedia if he could be really well-sourced, per "who have received significant press coverage" in NPOL #2, but the referencing here isn't getting him there: it's based on just one routine piece of election-night coverage, and one piece in which he gives a brief soundbite about his ability to work across political party lines with the local MNA, in an article that isn't otherwise about him. There's simply not enough sourcing, or enough substance, here to deem him notable just for being the mayor of a town with a population of just 11K. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 04:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gio Matteo Natoli

Gio Matteo Natoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not appear to meet our notability requirements – one brief mention is all I've been able to find in modern sources. The page was created by globally-locked long-term nuisance editor Alec Smithson, who was/is obsessed with people named "Natoli". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't come across Alec Smithson's other stuff, but this also has an article in the Portuguese version of Wikipedia. That one seems very well-sourced. I think this is probably notable but most sources will not be in the English language. MartinJones (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, MartinJones, that's Alec Smithson for certain (note the Telecom Italia IP address)! But to be doubly sure, pinging Voceditenore – who is also familiar with this editor – for a second opinion. However well-sourced that page may look at first sight, you'll note that even with all the duplicated references and general bluster and obfuscation, there's exactly one reference there that's less than about 150 years old – the same Domenico Ligresti book that's the only ref in the stub I wrote here. I read Italian without difficulty, by the way, and have searched for sources in that language. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed and convincing response, Justlettersandnumbers. MartinJones (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps these edits on Wikidata provide some useful cross-connections to other pages and projects which could be affected by related issues. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion and that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. North America1000 03:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VirtoCommerce

VirtoCommerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's sources are all either affiliated with the company, re-postings of press releases, or blog posts. The award listed on the site is a second place mention from 'CMS critic', which appears to be a non-notable blog. I've looked and I haven't found any better sources, so I believe this article does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for software. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article sources are not all affiliated with the company.
    1) The first link is the link to our license as we state in our article that our software is open source. Thus we need to mention the license.
    2) The second link is the link to GitHub where we host our open source code. Again, it's a separate website where developers host their open source projects.
    3) CodeProject - again, it's a repository of our code but on another developer community platform.
    4) Habrahabr is the hugest IT community in Russia with the strong moderation system. They posted our article about the system. This website is not affiliated with us and to post on it you have to have the high rating. It's not a blog post or press-release, it's a description of the system on the high-quality resource.
    5) This one is wrong link and can be deleted.
    6) This is a press-release, can be deleted.
    7) It's a list of code contributors to our product. Can be deleted, but I don't understand what's bad with it?
    8) Yes, it's a press-release which explains how the product was created. We can provide more written proofs for this.
    9) This is not actual, can be deleted.
    10) It's a featured app in Microsoft list. 7th place.
    11) It's a personal view of the moderator for CMS Critic. This site is ranked high in Google for ecommerce, just one example - https://screencast.com/t/JHpoVlx6V7W.
    So, I agree with some comments from the moderator above, but the GitHub links and some other point for deletion can't be treated as negative from my point of view.

It's also important to mention that this moderator never gently told me what exactly to fix and never helped me, just deleted, marked and replied "I will say simply, just stop spamming". This is not a way polite people help each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this again...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetraro Hawaz (Voice of Chitral)

Chetraro Hawaz (Voice of Chitral) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable. could find reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The only source in the article is to a "news site" that anyone can edit, and thus a self-published source, not a reliable source per WP's rules. It's also a dead link... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Allen (actor)

Todd Allen (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN actor. Unable to find anything other than sources saying he had a few parts or promotional stuff. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history

Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is anachronistic, Muslim history didn't start any earlier than around 610 (well in the 7th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - specious rationale. The timeline gives the births of various ancestors etc of Muhammad, and the events of the first 30 years of his life. Perfectly reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Any work of "Muslim history" covering the whole period will begin with the late 6th century. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted by the nominator, this is a history of Muhammad before he began preaching Submission. I quote the History of Islam article: first the intro, and then its "Islamic origins" section:

    Despite concerns about reliability of early sources, most historians believe that Islam originated in Mecca and Medina at the start of the 7th century.

    According to tradition, the Islamic prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca around the year 570. His family belonged to the Quraysh. When he was about forty years old, he began receiving what Muslims consider to be divine revelations delivered through the angel Gabriel, which would later form the Quran, enjoining him to proclaim a strict monotheistic faith, warn his compatriots of the impending Judgement Day, and castigate social injustices of his city.

    Works of Muslim history do not begin with the late sixth century except to provide background information: if you're writing from the Muslim point of view, you'll begin your account of Muslim history at Creation, and if you're not, you'll begin your account of Muslim history (as opposed to background information) in the early seventh century. There's no point in moving this content to the Muhammad article, since it's just a few bullets of information that's already much better expressed in his biography. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddle, faddle! I should have said "History of Islam", but I forgot how many pedants are around. As you recognize it is necessary to admit twice, any bla bla work will include the 6th century, precisely to give background information. In the same way, the Timeline of World War I begins before the actual war, as any reader would expect. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the course you want to take, I'll say delete as basically redundant to Muhammad in Mecca without being a good redirect there. Once again, none of these items are specifically Islamic, and we already have the background information elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We always have the information in "Timelines" elsewhere, and so we should. But many people like the format and use them. If you feel like that, try nominating Timeline of 7th-century Muslim history and see how that goes. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a subpage of Timeline of Islamic history created by the separating of that page by century. It was a reasonable thing to do then (2004) and still looks reasonable to me. There seems also to be a content dispute regarding the inclusion of events before the birth of Muhammad or before the start of his preaching. If this article is not deleted, that dispute could be continued on the talk page, but my opinion is that these events could be included. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subpage of all other timelines in other centuries, this is the only one nominated for deletion. Furthermore I don't see any real reason to delete it (as well as keep the others). It just needs a bit more work. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole thing is an oxymoron. It might be renamed to Timeline of life of Mohammed, but I expect that we have something better on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or delete the whole timeline). The only reason its not part of Timeline of Islamic history is that the long article was split in small pieces because people don't like hugh articles. (btw. it looks like the none of them have any sources) Christian75 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the timeline used the Arabic calendar, having a single page for events in years BH would not be controversial. I see no reason to delete this article simply because the time divisions used are not ideal. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There is something rather off about deciding the validity of an article about the history of Islam based solely on how it fits with a calendar based on the birth of Jesus Christ! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I'll explain. The title "Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history" uses the usual calendar, based on Christianity. If the whole timeline set used the Islamic calendar, this would be something like "Timeline of pre-Hegira Muslim history", to which the same objections could not be made. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There could be if the Christian calendar started (say) with the baptism or death of Jesus rather than his birth. But that's not really the point. If you don't get it you don't get it I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to An-225. seems to be the consensus. Andy, would you please do what's necessary. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonov An-325

Antonov An-325 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to attest to notability. This information, with reliable sources, would be better of as a mention on the Antonov An-225 article. BilCat (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI, this was a plan for around 6 months in early 1991 in the euphoria of post-Soviet cooperation before their collapse into non-working plumbing. The first plan was to resurrect HOTOL as the smaller Interim HOTOL with conventional (and Soviet) rocket engines, piggybacked from the back of an An-225. This had a payload of around 5 tons. Increasing the payload to 7 tons was considered necessary to make this a commercial launch vehicle, which increased the vehicle weight still further. However that then made the takeoff roll of the stacked aircraft too long for the available equatorial launch site airfields (Kourou). Options were considered: longer flights from a longer field (but from where?), RATO (too high structural load on the pylons), an enlarged aircraft or the An-325, an An-225 (probably the #2 airframe that's still incomplete) with the inboard engines doubled up, as the lowest-cost option for greater thrust and a shortened takeoff roll.
Other than as a HOTOL launcher, there was no point to this aircraft as it was still just a STO(L) An-225, which no-one else needed.
Then the endemic HOTOL cold feet did for it, as did general Russian unrest.
As a supposed potential customer for this (and probably the people who'd broken it by asking for larger payloads), by 1993 it was a bit of a joke around ESA and Eutelsat, mostly for the French to taunt the British and their "Dan Dare spaceplane" vs. the French and their "Tintin" rockets. Then the Arianes blew up anyway and the French rocketeers went quiet. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 27 April 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content House Kenya

Content House Kenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a relatively new outfit. Some of its output has received some limited coverage but the company itself seems to have received only peripheral and glancing mentions. Searches reveal very little else. One of the films might be notable (although probably not the one which already has a Wikipedia article), but the company falls below the bar. Fails to meet WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   15:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The organization may be "relatively new" as you said, but the work it has done over the years has received significant coverage in local, regional and international (Al Jazeera) media. I have since included other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saokoth (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended congress (sex position)

Suspended congress (sex position) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just doing it standing up. The sourcing is lousy--a website that claims to get it from the Kama Sutra, but that doesn't seem to use this term. Trigger warning for old people: contains picture of strong, young people doing it standing up. (Not very realistically--there is no way this couple is not falling.) Drmies (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Streams Corporation

Malik Streams Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible A7, definitely not notable. South Nashua (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Walluschnig

Antonio Walluschnig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded with the following rationale: "Unsourced, importance not asserted, could not find sources that cover the subject in any depth." Can't add much to this. GregorB (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article that does not assert notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no referencing here to get him over WP:GNG, and no claim of notability strong enough to grant him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass. I'm not familiar enough with Hungarian history to definitively assert that an improved notability claim and better referencing weren't even possible, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly show him to be notable, but nothing here as of right now is claiming or showing anything that could make this keepable. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 30 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Larry R. Richards

Fr. Larry R. Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Will require a major rewrite in order to be encyclopediatic. References are essentially just external links. Appears to be written by someone with close connections to the subject. Osarius - Want a chat? 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:*Search terms are tricky, I searched Larry + Richards + Erie and readily found sources on a Proquest archibve search. I'm sure that searching other combinations would turn up more hits, didn't even try "Fr. Larry R. Richards" because it seemed an unlikely way for media to refer to him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I agree with User:Dlohcierekim. Subject seems notable. However, author must avoid bias and personal tone if they do know the subject, (which they shouldn't in accordance with Wikipedia's Policy), should keep their article as professional and unbiased as possible. A re-write is highly recommended. —User4495 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please reference here, or, better yet, on the article, independent widespread coverage talking about the subject? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs to be edited to let some of the hot air out, achieve an encyclopedic tone. I have, however, sourced it. He is a popular speaker on the Catholic Evangelical circuit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just gave the article a massive haircut, in the process I ran a gNews seerch on his "Reason for Our Hope Foundation", and hits [7] persuade me that a short article supporting notability can be written. On second look, hits on the Foundation are in a publication put out by a diocese where he was running a conference, by the same publisher who published the book, or are otherwise unpersuasive for notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went to article creator's talk page and began to explain how WP works, but stopped myself before I wrote something downright unChristian. I used to be dismissive of editors who wanted to delete every piece of WP:PROMO written by a hired gun or a new editor with an apparent COI. But I am coming around to their POV. Even with someone like this, an arguable notable priest. I am just out of patience with singers,and writers and activists using Wikipedia as free advertising space. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing notability for local priest. Being a public speaker does not provide notability on its own, and his foundation does not appear to have distinguished activities or coverage in RS beyond that of other religious organizations. Reywas92Talk 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so we're clear, something like a diocesan newspaper writing up a diocesan conference where he is speaking, is in the category of a local paper; it does not support notability, but can be used as a WP:RS on facts. But discussion of him in major publications that happen to be Catholic or Christian, such as the National Catholic Reporter, First Things or Patheos do support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk)
  • Delete Changing my ivote after adding half a dozen solid sources in an attempt to source that article persuasively, and failing. He seems to be an inspiring motivational speaker, popular enough to be flying around the country talking to enthusiastic audiences, have ~1,500 twitter followers, write books that sell and get mentioned in interviews by people who found them inspirational,, but I can't find enough reliable, secondary sources to support notability. If anybody can source it persuasively, feel free to ping me to reconsider. He has an awfully common name, so I may be simply not be using the right keyword.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Martin (Businessperson)

Philip Martin (Businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a businessman, with no claim of notability strong enough to grant him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and nowhere close to the depth of sourcing required to clear WP:GNG. Of the four references cited here, #4 verifies tangential facts about his company while entirely failing to mention Martin's name at all in conjunction with it; #3 is a Q&A interview with Martin in which he answers deeply probing questions like "Are you a saver or a spender?" and "Do you haggle over prices?"; and #2 is a blurb in a newspaper's local news section for the area in which Martin lives. #1 is really the only source here that might actually count for something toward getting him past WP:GNG — it's paywalled, so I can't verify how substantive it is, but even if I give it the benefit of the doubt it takes more than just one GNG-eligible source to pass GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform or an alternative LinkedIn: the fact that a company has an article does not in and of itself automatically translate into a notability freebie for a separate article about its CEO in the absence of better sourcing than this, particularly when even the company's article (created by the same user) has been flagged as raising possible conflict of interest suspicions too. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:14, 27 April 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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too Old To Date

Too Old To Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of RS, non notable promo. I am concerned by the rev history, 5 or 6 IPs doing bulk improvment edits, which appear to be socks. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 13:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relisting, a request for closure has been filed, but so far is un-acted upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunsoft video games

List of Sunsoft video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is just a mirror of information from one source. Relevant policy: WP:NOTMIRROR Yashovardhan (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You seem to have misunderstood the cited policy. WP:NOTMIRROR has to do with using Wikipedia as a repository for files from other websites. It does not say that we can't maintain a list of a publisher's games just because a list of their games has been published elsewhere. Indeed, the existence of this information in external sources is crucial to meeting WP: Verifiability requirements.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable and easily verifiable by the numerous list entries that contain articles and references to the Sunsoft name. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay sanchaniya

Ajay sanchaniya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely lacking notability; was previously deleted via CSD. Re-creation is likely by the subject. Let's kill it via AfD so that any future articles can (if appropriate) be done by G4. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah. No independent sources in article, and lead was copied from [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pora valit

Pora valit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article itself is factually incorrect. It is not a blog, but a livejournal community, in which users can post or crosspost from other blogs, so it doesn't even belong in its current category. The community does contain a few thousand users (few of them active), but it is not notable enough even within Russia or for Russian wikipedia - there are some occasional mentions in local media or in more prominent blogs, but nothing worthy of a Wikipedia article. The references are circular - [1] and [3] are the same thing and they both simply refer to [2]. [4] just shows the position of the community in the current rating for russian LJ segment - it may have been at the top once, but isn't even in top 10 anymore. The Economist article is the only actual reference - and it only mentions the subject once, in passing, it isn't even the main topic of that article. In short, it just doesn't pass WP:N, nor did it even back in the day when the community was at the peak activity. Malachi108 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All The Ordinary Angels (Film)

All The Ordinary Angels (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The play seemed to get some attention, but the film seems very indie with little media coverage. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 27 April 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 Speedily deleted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did the Arctic iceberg form ?

How did the Arctic iceberg form ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:06, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hirsh Singh

Hirsh Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in the primaries for a forthcoming election. As always, this is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOL -- if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate in the primaries, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. But this fails to demonstrate that he has the necessary preexisting notability; as written, it just consists of a single sentence stating that he exists, and is referenced entirely to routine coverage of his campaign announcement with no evidence of any coverage predating that. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of a person's candidacy in a primary contest is simply expected to always exist for all candidates, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE, and does not assist in building a case for inclusion per WP:GNG except in the extremely rare instance that it explodes into something on the order of the international media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell. Being able to show just five pieces of coverage of a primary candidate's campaign is not evidence that their candidacy is more notable than the norm — especially since (a) PRNewsWire is not a reliable source, but a press release distribution platform, meaning that his own campaign was the author of self-published "coverage" in the instance of link #1, and (b) IndiaWest and NewsIndia Times are not newspapers in India, but Indian-American ethnic community newspapers in the United States. So the scope of coverage being shown here is already three counts less impressive than you've presented it as being, before we've even gotten into why South Jersey Today and Shore News Network aren't strong sources either. (Hint on that last part: think about the rather large difference between "substantive coverage" and "blurb".) And what John Pack Lambert said in his comment is true as well: Singh is a Republican, but this article as written fails to say that. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of this rises above routine coverage expected of anyone running in an election. People who do not have the party nomination who are running for governor are not notable. The fact that passing mention of him occurs in far off press does not change that it is not above routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert This is reliable significant independent coverage. If this is routine for candidates for NJ Governor, maybe candidates for Governor should have some sort of intrinsic notability. But this passes GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By your method of counting virtually every candidate for political office would pass GNG. However the coverage in cases like this is short, episodic and routine at present, and just not enough to create a reliable article, plus it would lead us to creating way more articles than we could ever hope to adequately keep updated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every single candidate in any election would always pass GNG if all you had to show to get them over GNG just for being a candidate was a few pieces of campaign coverage. That's not how NPOL works, however: in very nearly all cases they must either win the office or already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway. The only way to get over GNG just on campaign coverage alone is to have that coverage explode to a volume far out of proportion what could be merely and routinely expected to exist for all candidates — like what happened to Christine O'Donnell — and the volume of coverage you've offered here is not approaching what it would take to pass that hurdle. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virtually no coverage before July 2016 - [14]. He is polling at 0%-1% in the Republican primary - so this isn't even a case of waiting for the election for a potential winner.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism In Indore

Tourism In Indore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an travel guide. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Professional Careers in the United States

List of Professional Careers in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate list of careers that does not meet WP:LISTN. No standard appears to apply for entry to the list. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 28 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Yadav

Abhimanyu Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly seems famous for being the son of a politician, whose own Wikipedia page is sparse. The subject's official website is his Facebook page. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin ICYMI, not sure what to make of this. Dlohcierekim 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable youth leader of a state level party. This is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete as I found no significant coverage. Without significant coverage, there is no claim to notability, as pointed out by John. There is another person by this name, sparsely covered. Would appreciate being pointed toward any significant coverage and would appreciate said coverage being added to the article. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PSNone of the sources in the article are in a language can read, making assessment difficult. Dlohcierekim 15:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR due to low participation. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esa Piironen

Esa Piironen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very nice resume, but doesn't seem to be a notable architect. Many of his awards are second or third-place finishes in what appears to be unremarkable, local competitions. There are even a few honorable mentions. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narjis Afroz Zaidi

AfDs for this article:
Narjis Afroz Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cited sources,except one, are not reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. fails notability criteria. Saqib (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cape May (band)

Cape May (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local band 2003-2007. Article unsourced since created in 2005. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest found only a profile in a free arts & entertainment weekly, much of which is attributed to the band's MySpace page. No convincing evidence that the subject meets WP:BAND. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:06, 27 April 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 05:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Shepard

AfDs for this article:
Richmond Shepard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD closed as WP:NPASR. Shepard does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It needs proper investigation, as it has been tagged for notability for almost nine years. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:06, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hyde (musician)

Josh Hyde (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial support. The "references" are advertisements for his album, listings for the band, Facebook, and a couple of album reviews. Lacks in-depth references. reddogsix (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Rage

Raju Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPAM and GNG. First page of Google search appears to be not much more than self-promotion. South Nashua (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Too soon. No significant exhibits or museum shows, monographs or collections. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robosoft Technologies

AfDs for this article:
Robosoft Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical PR.Non-notable startup. Winged Blades Godric 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that I've declined a CSD G4 nomination for this article as its content differs substantially from the version deleted in the previous AfD. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia’s business coverage needs to get better at covering foreign businesses. For example, the website Techinasia.com published a substantial article on Robsoft Technologies.[23] The Alexa rank of Techinasia is 8,798 which means it is one of the most highly trafficked websites on the internet (if its Alexa ranking was not gamed). [24] By all appearances, the website techinasia.com looks like a quality content website. So it appears to be a reliable source. Wikipedia unfortunately has no article on Tech In Asia that I could readily find. The Alexa rank for another website which covers the company is also pretty high – namely vccircle.com.[25] And that website looks credible as well. That article can be found at: Mobile app developer Robosoft secures $3.7M in Series A funding from Kalaari Capital The company is mentioned in other reliable sources in the article too. Robsoft Technologies employs 600 people which is a fairly sizable company. So the main problem is that Wikipedia needs better coverage of business/tech websites in Asia and better coverage of Asian companies. Wikipedia has an article entitled Asian Century which has experts predicting Asia as a major economic/cultural force in the 21st century. It is time that Wikipedia better covers Asian business/tech. desmay (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- promotional & no indications of significance or notability. For example, the level of funding is minuscule for this private company to be presumed notable. Available sourcing is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources referred to above and in the article are WP:PRIMARY and therefore do not establish notability. The Techinasia article referred to above is clearly an advertorial with the same tired formula including interviews and photos of the founder. -- HighKing++ 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 11:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Malhar Thakar

Malhar Thakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as the subject is not notable per the WP:GNG. This is because the only sources included in the article are trivial mentions of the subject or unreliable (and not independent) sources. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable independent sources (such is IMDb). The article also fails WP:NACTOR as the person seems to have only preformed in one notable film and does not appear to meet "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 14:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does seem to fail WP:NACTOR. All of the sources (save for two) are from the same source. No widespread coverage or apparent following. bojo | talk 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough to pass NACTOR Spiderone 12:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am fairly familiar to Gujarati film industry and the region in general and have created a few pages related to it. I was hesitant about creating the page for the actor the same reasons mentioned here. It's a weak case of WP:TOOSOON, but at the same time the actor is fairly well-known and as can now be seen from the page multiple WP:RS support this. So I'd probably favour weak keep over delete. Would also invite Nizil Shah for his opinion. Coderzombie (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I had rewritten Gujarati cinema article and I know Gujarati language. I have seen his film Chhello Divas which was blockbuster in Gujarat State. I have pointed out the same cases, to nominator, of Janki Bodiwala, his co-star in the said film and Aarohi Patel who is also Gujarati actress. These all are weak cases of WP:TOOSOON but Malhar Thakar is somewhat known face in the state now. (Disclaimer: He was my schoolmate but we studied in different classes. We had some mutual friends.) I noted that, after these articles are created, their official pages on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are "varified" (blue ticks). So these articles might have been created to serve this purpose. I may not vote here as it may be considered as WP:COI. :) Regards,--Nizil (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you, Coderzombie for inviting.--Nizil (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point, that's why I think he might pass WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR Coderzombie (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But those sources would not be useful as they are not independent. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 15:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has coverage in national newspapers (such as Times of India) as well as Gujarati newspapers, which are widely circulated and independent sources (such as Divya Bhaskar). Coderzombie (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Ehsan Ghouri

Tariq Ehsan Ghouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

struck per this development Dlohcierekim 15:58, 28 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouPoundit

YouPoundit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the references are result of PR. No independent sources are found. Fails WP:COMPANY. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Weak because I found hits, several of them actually. Quite a few are significant. However, these significant sources appear to either be advertising the company, or otherwise unreliable. This link is the most promising I could find, but it's only mentioned as part of an article which also discusses other startups, so it's not exactly significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dein

Julius Dein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The following copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Julius Dein. Eagleash (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think this article should be keep bcoz nowadays there is a lot of people who became famous on Facebook, 6 million followers is not a big amount, there is too many people who have more than 10 million/15 million followers and its possible to get paid followers/fake followers. If this article is able to be keep so all of other facebook star should add on the encyclopedia, Pls make an case about Julius Dein" This comment added by nominator 119.30.35.180.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of those references are the Daily Mail! (talk)Quetzal1964 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't necessarily believe what you read in the Daily Mail is true, but I do believe it talks about this man on a regular basis. Er, actually, no. I believe their website talks about this man on a regular basis. I'm not sure if the print edition does. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as not all of the sources are from the Daily Mail, it's not much of a concern. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liyo

Liyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product/company. Zero coverage in RS as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:28, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah S. Al-Salloum

Abdullah S. Al-Salloum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The sources cited are articles written by him but there does not appear to be any independent coverage where he is the subject. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The subject clearly meets the criteria for notability. WP:BASIC: "The subject is presumed notable if he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This can be seen here, here, here and here. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". This primary source proves what this secondary source says. WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The subject has contributed in his field of Economics with the accounting tool discussed on his page that has had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers. WP:NACADEMICS: The subject is considered as researcher in the field of economics, whose scholars, under “Recent Publications” are published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions. Translating them gives economic analysis that is based on the subject’s own thoughts and ideas that bring up conclusions, suggestions and advices. The subject is also listed in the Arabic Wikipedia here, meeting its notability criteria, with the same content and given primary and secondary sources.Juffran (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)— Juffran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Juffran (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over, perhaps. Every citations is non-English...many appear to be website ephemera, but it's impossible to tell. Yes, I know about WP:NOENG, but there's no logical justification for having an article for which the typical reader cannot read/check/follow-up on the sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete machine translation suffices to inspect these sources for non-Arabic readers. Reference #1 is a web forum and #3 is some documents someone uploaded to a file share service, and can be disregarded. It's plain that everything else is either merely links to things the author has written (refs 4,5,6); a quip in an interview (ref 7); articles about Ponzi schemes that don't mention this author (refs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); or information about a particular financial calculator website (13, 14, 15). None of which meets notability requirements. Notwithstanding the efficacy of the translation, the article is missing basic biographic information that would help validate the creator's research, such as subject's education or employment. Incidentally this and this suggest that one of the article's contributors is playing games with his/her identity. - Bri (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merely trivialising those sources because you do not fully know their reliability is clearly an unfair thing to do. Ignoring the fact that the subject has made researches that have had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers also shows that the research you have done is not in-depth. The subject has had several of his scholars, under “Recent Publications”, published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions.Juffran (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that those who have voted for the article to be deleted are clearly doing so because they do not understand the language the sources are written in. Like the commenter above me has clearly stated, what he did was a machine translation. How can one know the reliability of a source from a machine translation?Juffran (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the reliability of the sources, it is whether or not the sources discuss the subject in depth. Everyone apart from you is clear that they do not and this is easily verified from machine translations of the sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you dropped a notice on my talk page that you had nominated the article for deletion because the subject is not notable, I had to go back to read the guidelines from the beginning to see if I had read a different thing before creating the article. I thought I was totally wrong until I discovered that this was done because the sources given are not in English. As to why I am the only one in support of the article staying, it could be because I am the only one not depending on some machine translations. Instead of nominating the artcile for deletion, you probably could have suggested that the article be further improved upon with more sources added. The subject is notable because he passes a number of given criteria.Juffran (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it, I wonder, because you were paid to create the article? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Juffran/Archive. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about paying me to create the article, I have clearly read the guidelines to follow in disclosing paid editing. So, if I was paid, you would have seen it clearly on the talk page. The sockpuppet investigation you quoted here was closed, so why have you referred us to it. Even if I have cautioned myself not to ask this for a long while, I just have to ask. Do you have any issue with me, as I discovered you have also reverted a few of my other edits? The only reason I am defending this article is that it was nominated in error, and I need to correct the impression that the individual is not notable when he clearly passes the notability criteria. Juffran (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AGF that you weren't acting in cahoots with other entities to get these published, it's very impressive that you are able to create articles like this one using 100% Arabic sources, and Gongniu Group Corporation using 100% Mandarin Chinese sources. - Bri (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that impresses you too much as to come speak about it publicly, then I wonder what will happen when you read about Bella Devyatkina. She is my next project as I noticed she doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet, so you might want to sit back and watch out. Besides, I do not see how your comment relates to the issue of the subject not being notable, other than a well-crafted and calculated attack on my personality when you clearly do not know me or my abilities. Juffran (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not I don't ​have an opinion about you personally. But cowboy editors who come in with six guns shooting to defend Chinese electrical cord manufacturers or whatever tend to have short lifetimes here. "Everyone apart from you is clear" coming from a seasoned admin is what you should be paying attention to. Good luck. Bri (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already established the fact that the subject pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMICS. Juffran (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me you haven't. And not based on the very refs you've provided and those on the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what about a Google search on the individual? It didn't give you results still? Well, all the reults you would find are not in English and I should have been spending the time spent here to improve on the article with more sources. I guess I should concentrate on doing that over the coming days Juffran (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uralla Tigers

Uralla Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur rugby league club with no claim to notability Mattlore (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a poorly written stub with no indication of notability. Also, my understanding of the Australian league system is that this club plays at such a low level that Wikipedia notability guidelines are unlikely to be met anytime soon by this club. Skemcraig (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Bonds

Roy Bonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable as a powerlifter, kickboxer or MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no record of him fighting MMA at sherdog and there's definitely no indication of him meeting the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Checking to see if he was a notable weightlifter was a bit more difficult--especially since there's no indication of what championships he competed in or won. However, when I went through the records at USA Powerlifting ([29]), I can not find his name mentioned at all. I looked especially carefully at events in 2000 and 2001 since that is the time period he reputedly set all these records and had so much success. To me, the burden of proof of notability has not been met. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 30 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PowerDirector

PowerDirector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No individual notability as required by WP:GNG. Redirect attempt reverted by article creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 27 April 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) — Yash talk stalk 04:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gilljam

Adam Gilljam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete. There appears to be next to no coverage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oni Hasan

Oni Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is not significant in terms of WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. Didn't found any individual sources and remarkable achievement about the subject. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Baling District. clpo13(talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ppd Baling Sik

Ppd Baling Sik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Phacellodomus. with an added hatnote to point people toward The Thorn Birds. No masochistic bird text merged anywhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thornbird

Thornbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:PTM, no exact matches. The mythological creature may be notable, but it does not have an article, so describing it is not useful. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the mythological bird may be no older than the novel. I've spent a bit of time Googling and can only find copies or paraphrases of McCullough's paragraph about the myth: Mccullough quote and then here and similar! There's a religious thornbird myth too, cropping up just the once, but it's really about the goldfinch. If anyone can find an account of a pre-McCullough thornbird myth, there should be an article. Otherwise, no need for dab page, just redirect to Phacellodomus with a hatnote there to The Thorn Birds (though the hatnote on that latter article is inadequate, needs expansion or a dab page ....!) PamD 10:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it's truly notable, start with an article and then a DAB page. I don't believe it is notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly "thornbirds" is a common term to refer to a class of birds. And The Thorn Birds was a blockbuster novel that was made into a TV series. I doubt that the novel and genus Phacellodomus are confused for one another very often, but if they are, it can be handled by hatnotes on each page. As for the self-impaling bird myth, I can find no trace of it in WP:RS, albeit this may because sources on "thornbird" and "thornbirds" are filled with sources about the novel, even when searching with keywords like "myth." I do, howeve, have a storng suspicion that this page is a sneaky kind of PROMO for youtube videos here: [[30]]. Delete as serving no purpose.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Phacellodomus as common name for the species (genus really). MB 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, not sure I follow what you mean. You can't redirect "text", you redirect articles. Thornbirds currently redirects to Thornbird. I propose that both be changed to redirect to Phacellodomus. Singular and plural form to the same place. MB 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney (disambiguation)

Kidney (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was erroneously listed at MFD. Rationale was

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit: the man with the surname, the Chinese medicine term, and the island are dab-page-worthy, so too much for a simple hatnote. PamD 08:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found another name-bearer. PamD 08:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And have replaced the PTMs by SAs. PamD 08:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:PTM, since this didn't come out as a Wikilink during the [intended] nomination for deletion, with emphasis added: "To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article." Six of the 12 articles on the current page are for people whose last name is "Kidney", most of those non-notable people, and none of them is known as "Kidney" the way that Mr. Lincoln is routinely known as "Lincoln." The point here isn't to add more names or entries to the list, the point is to not HAVE a list if the things on it are not routinely referred to as the word or words in the article namespace. Is "Kidney Island" routinely called "Kidney"? If not, then it doesn't belong on this list. The Kidney (food) Wikilink just goes to a subsection of the existing article Kidney, which is kind of pointless. So between the non-notable entries which have no associated Wikipedia article, the various people and places that are almost certainly not known as "Kidney", and the redundant redirect, the only entry which remains at all viable here is the one for Kidney (Chinese medicine), and a single entry doesn't warrant an entire disambig page, it warrants a hatnote, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple people with surname "Kidney". They could be listed at Kidney (surname) ... which would then be a valid entry at Kidney (disambiguation) (which is not unreasonably long, even with the name-holders listed, so there seems no point in adding the extra layer of a separate surname page). I've always understood that geographic entities called "XYZ" plus a generic term such as "island", "mount", "river" etc are valid dab page entries for "XYZ", so that the Kidney Island entries are also valid. I also think there's a reasonable argument to include the food entry on the list, as the reader looking for "kidney" as food will not expect to find it only mentioned in an anatomy article. PamD 22:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, starting from the end there: the "Kidney as food" link does go to the article on the anatomical organ (a separate article could be produced on the organ as a food item, and we already have such a precedent in Liver (food), but no such article currently exists for the kidney... Wanna write one?). Me, I don't have a problem having "Kidney" mean both the organ and the food, as they really aren't different things, just different contexts, but this disambig page implies different topics, which they mostly (so far) are not, yes? Second, I agree that there are lots of precedents for using disambig pages for partial title matches like "Kidney Island"... I disagree that the precedents are a good thing or should be imitated, however, as that is not the purpose of a disambig page— the purpose is to give a heads-up to readers who might not know that several other "things" in the world are also known by the same name (usually not just a similar name, and not just a name with the name in it somewhere). The purpose isn't just to catalogue all of the titles that happen to partially match (though I understand that this is how it often appears!). If a person couldn't reasonably be expected to say, "I like kidney" and possibly mean both the food item as well as some famous artist named Mr. Kidney, the two of them don't belong on a disambig list because no one is going to mistake the one for the other in an encyclopedia and no one is going to type in the word "kidney" expecting to find the artist and then be confused when they get the organ. No one. In this sense, having a disamig page that mentions all of the possible permutations of article titles that happen to have the word "kidney" in them only adds to reader confusion. I know it feels right to add all of the partial title matches in here, but it doesn't help the reader and doesn't really do anything to move the project forward— it is a lateral move, which ends up being baggage we don't need. If we need it, then that need should be justified. I am still not seeing that here. Not yet, anyway. KDS4444 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The reader looking for kidney as food lands on the page Kidney and finds that it is an anatomical page; no mention of culinary uses in the lead section; if they scroll down a long way they might get to the TOC and notice, a very long way down it, "Kidneys as food", but I think they are much more likely to click on the hatnote and be led to the dab page, from where a helpful link takes them to the section about "Kidneys as food". Yes, they've gone back to the page where they first landed, but they are now seeing the information they want. Job done, dab page has been useful. (Yes, might get around to creating the article some time - quite a few sources, but not an area of cuisine I'm particularly interested in myself).
  2. We differ about the islands etc, but as you acknowledge yourself there are many precedents for such terms being (helpfully to my mind) listed on dab pages.
  3. There are two people surnamed "Kidney" with WP articles: are you saying that they should not be made accessible to readers who only know their surname? Surname-holders are usually listed on dab pages, or if the dab page becomes too large then in a surname page. No need for the extra layer of complexity here, the dab page does the job nicely. But a hatnote at Kidney would struggle to cope with the two name-holders who have articles as well as the Chinese medicine concept (let alone the useful-to-readers "Kidneys as food").
In short the dab page is useful to readers and complies with our guidelines so Keep. PamD 12:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chipmunks and The Chipettes: Born to Rock

The Chipmunks and The Chipettes: Born to Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources cited since April 2010 (7 years). DBZFan30 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak John J

Deepak John J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessperson that fails WP:GNG. A software he created got highlighted in the Hindu, so not A7, but there does not appear to be any substantial coverage of him independent of his companies. I'm doubtful that his companies or software are notable, but even if they were WP:NOTINHERITED would apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 27 April 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The North Fork Championship

The North Fork Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Most of the search results are self-published, local, or esoteric to kayakers. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to be nearing a place in AfD's where "local coverage" means "Any news outlet in the same state". The Idaho Statesman is, by any reasonable evaluation, a WP:RS independent of the subject and the largest paper in Idaho and its article on the event is certainly significant. It also has significant, independent RS coverage from the largest broadcast station in the state. Dismissing these as "local" is like dismissing a story about the New York City mayor because all the coverage is in the New York Times and Bloomberg. "Local coverage" is being twisted to carve out articles that qualify under WP:GNG, which this satisfies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz Hollywood

Mercedes-Benz Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The article states the claim of significance as "its Hollywood location and for being a popular place for celebrities to buy vehicles." The article goes on to mention the dealership closed in '95 and the building now has new tenants. I would argue that this isn't a significant enough claim of notability for the dealership to receive it's own WP page, and therefore should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WowBox

WowBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability. A Japanese snack service of the same name has a higher number of search hits. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Marian Hill. (non-admin closure) feminist 05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Gongol

Samantha Gongol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced and written, and not notable as a solo artist per WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ya no hay respeto

Ya no hay respeto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one-city radio program, not on the air (the station it aired on has moved to FM *and* changed hands since 2007). The bio of the host on his website says the show lasted just three months on this station. Raymie (t • c) 07:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unsourced article about a local radio program, with no credible claim of notability per WP:NMEDIA. A radio program needs to be distributed nationally (either on a network or through syndication) before it earns an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, and even then can still be deleted if the sourceability just isn't there — but a local radio program lives or dies entirely on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — There are no reliable sources for this radio station online that I could find. Notability is in question and fails to meet our criteria for inclusion, as mentioned above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Living together before marriage

Living together before marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an essay, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:00, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zacari

Zacari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He may be famous one day, but his current claim to fame is his affiliation with Kendrick Lamar, and notability is not transferable. Gsearch revealed minor mentions in relation to the release of DAMN, and some hits at Discogs. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly respect your opinion, and AfD is designed for such discussions, but your accusations against fellow editors are uncivil and unfounded. I did perform an investigation before I nominated. Even the links you provide seem to confirm the point behind the nomination. The first line of the first article is, "Being mentioned alongside Kendrick Lamar, Rihanna and U2 is a dream for many artists, but for singer-songwriter Zacari Pacaldo, it’s a reality." Kendrick Lamar's name is in ALL but one of the urls, and that link leads to an article about how inappropriate it was that Zacari crashed the stage at the People's Choice Awards and other elite events. I wish him the best, and hope that one day he warrants an article in WP, but currently, he seems to fail notability standards. Please be more civil in your opinion, as it makes this process needlessly hostile.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 10:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just reviewed the People's Choice Award's link, and that's Zacari Nicasio, not the Zacari of the article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know Wikipedia's rules for deletion of musicians, but I wanted to note that this article was valuable to me. I'm cataloging Lamar's album "Damn" for the Dallas Public Library, and this article gave me a quick, single-source location to get the data points of Zacari's full name, while also confirming that this is the Zacari associated with the Kendrick Lamar album. -KM 27 April, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.145.2 (talk) 13:03, 27 April 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) — Yash talk stalk 04:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Escalation

Nuclear Escalation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is well written well refrenced about the NATO doctrine. The topic is an important fact of history, containing valuable information. It need some work to bring it to Wikipedia standart. So improvement would be the better solution than delet. This was written from a new editor, II think to help him and improve it will bring Wikipedia in the long therm more benefit that delet the work of a new member of Wikipedia who just need some support how to work on wikipediaFFA P-16 (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It would make a good linked page for the main page on NATO, where these issues are scarcely addressed. voxcanis (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Information

If the main source of the article (References 2,3,6-13) is as wrong as its numbers, it must be absolute crap. Only 208 Buccanneers have ever been built, all the other numbers are obviously wrong as well. Is this serious?--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Philie

Matt Philie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

YouTuber with only 170,000 subscribers. May be notable one day, but not yet. Google search shows mostly primary sources and YouTube-centric sites. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seeing that this discussion has been open for some time I have taken some time to soak up the arguments here. Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and thus articles about them should meet Wikipedia's standards for sources and the GNG. The editors below citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES may not have carefully reviewed this article, which is exclusively sourced to first-party documents and highly dubious third party references like this apartment rental guide. Additionally, users citing prior precedent are not convincing: the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES reads as a clear break with that precedent. In light of all this, there do not appear to be any substantial arguments to keep that rebut the nomination or the arguments to delete that followed.

The crux of this is that the article as it stands clearly fails WP sourcing standards and the GNG -- I would suggest no prejudice against re-creating the article with superior sourcing that passes that bar. A Traintalk 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Kent Foreign School

Korea Kent Foreign School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The RfD has sadly been misunderstood. It wasn't about destroying the existing consensus, but merely about formalising it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reread the purpose of the RfD. It was intended to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing. It was not intended to replace the consensus, since that has been arrived at over many years of AfDs. As I said, it's been misinterpreted (probably deliberately by a number of deletionists). And a number of secondary schools have been kept in AfDs since after the consensus has been cited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. The RfC, as all the previous, perennial ones, did not identify any clear consensus. The fact is undeniable that a precedent exists as evidenced by thousands of school articles, whether documented in a non-policy/non-guideline essay or not. One point the closer made was that the RfC should not be used to cause a stampede on school articles by the deletionists.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (per DEL8 and FAILN) for lack of notability under NSCHOOLS. The "schools" RFC, with more than a hundred participants, represents broader consensus than any number of AfD discussions dominated by a small group of editors who repeat the same tired argument. Per the close, the community's consensus is that articles about schools need significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to be kept. Such coverage does not appear to exist for this school. Rebbing 13:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NSCHOOL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a lonheld standing consensus of keeping such articles as long as they in fact exist and are important to society, which is in fact a notability criterion, sufficient to keep, barred from any supposed "I don't like it" arguments. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Societal importance is not a notability criterion under any of our guidelines, and the recent "schools" RFC explicitly rejected the argument that existence is sufficient for notability: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist."

      Additionally, no one here is making an "I don't like it" argument; the problem is that there isn't enough independent, reliable coverage to write a useful article for this specific school. Ironically, your vote, couched in terms of social value and the notion that all school articles should be kept regardless of their individual merits, is clearly an "I like it." Rebbing 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. as for all verifiable high schools. The RfC on secondary schools found there was not consensus to change the presumption that they are to be considered notable; it also did say there was no consensus to quote SCHOOLOUTCMES as a guideline, which does cause a certain confusion. I do not think we have in the last 6 or 7 years deleted an article for a secondary school that met WP:V, unless there was some special special. I find it quite odd that the onesn ow being nominated for deletion are international schools, because these are among the ones that the strongest case could be made for. As a reminder, the strongest reason for considering all these as notable is to avoid these discussions. We have a few hundred thousand actually harmful articles -- mainly promotional or fan-motivated, but we also have lots of unrecognized copyvio from the early years. that's what we need to work on, and every nomination like thisdetracts from the available time to do it. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious what the strong case for keeping international schools is. These schools are usually private businesses which have an interest in promoting their school, and may use Wikipedia to do so. They're also less likely to have lasting social impact in the community, since they serve transient ex-pats, who usually don't form strong ties to the community. Finally, one would expect that sources for international schools would be easier to find than for local schools, since their students come from all over the world, and we'd expect greater diversity in media covering an international school. Pburka (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Huff Post by this guy [31] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long-standing precendent. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "2. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." --David Tornheim (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That Wikipedia gives free advertising space to private businesses simply because the business operates a school astonishes me. Simply existing is not enough to demonstrate notability. No newspapers or books seem to have deemed the school notable enough to write about it, indicating that it is not, in fact, notable. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it disappointing to see experienced editors are continuing to claim that there is consensus to keep secondary schools just because they exist -- which was explicitly rejected at the recent RfC. Cherry picking just the RfC's statement that "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" is absurd. That's not a keep argument; it's a behavioral argument. If someone is "flooding AfD", take them to ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeonggi Suwon International School

Gyeonggi Suwon International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: So why make an argument (even if you believe in it) that the consensus has refused? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One way to put it is that there was a bad decision reached, perhaps a wp:LOCALCONSENSUS, a temporary result that should be disregarded. A consensus to "Keep" at a number of AFDs since the RFC proves its supposed consensus is flawed. In general it is a stupid waste of time to have AFDs about secondary schools. It is American- and British-centric and evil in various other ways to delete the articles. You and I and most other longtime Wikipedia editors probably edited our own high school articles when we started. The articles should be kept. --doncram 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you know, being a ten-year editor does not give you the right to ignore consensus. That editors like you have been !voting against that decision does not make it flawed, only poorly-enforced. That you think deletion is "evil in various other ways" is illuminating. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree with Chris troutman. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You and I and most other longtime Wikipedia editors probably edited our own high school articles when we started ridiculous argument. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the recent RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is no longer inherent notability of secondary schools. as it stands it fails WP:GNG. if someone finds significant third party coverage in Korean I will happily reconsider. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The RFC couldn't be more clear on the matter regarding WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: this sort of circular argument is to be avoided. Unless Korean reliable sources can be found, this fails GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (per DEL8) as the school doesn't appear to have received the significant, independent attention from reliable sources that is required by the recently-reaffirmed notability standard. See NSCHOOLS; 2017 RFC on Schools. Rebbing 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Delete arguments are entirely on "I don't like it" which is not a policy argument; we still maintain that such articles can be acceptable and we always have so, and this is no different. We have never put "Schools must be deleted" in policy and the votes here have no basis for that, thus not relevant> These subjects are not one to maintain such coverage but, like with deleting YouTubers, ridiculous arguments as "But his sources suffice" are absolutely no different how we stick a "Needs better sourcing" argument here at all. Also,

politically speaking, no one has attempted to actually search locally thus committing systematic bias something that has in fact been maintained as unacceptable for AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

have you attempted to search locally? The onus is on keep !voters to provide evidence of significant coverage. If you do I will reconsider my !vote. LibStar (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a high school. Redirect is the official policy for such articles, not outright deletion. I mistakenly thought this was a non notable middle school.And BTW, the cited RfC was not about OUTCOMES - anyone who suggests it was should read the proposal again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Updated: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NSCHOOL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a high school, not a middle school and we normally keep them. The rather self-contradictory decision on SCHOOLOUTCOMES was that there was no consensus to consider it a guideline, but that there also was no consensus to do anything other than what it said, which is to keep all high school with a real existence. Cris, you've made several of these nomination. I suggest you go back and read the closing statement in full. It does not say what you think it does. . (And in any case, we certainly do have the right to ignore any guideline there is consensus to ignore, and anyone may so argue. The basic policy is WP:IAR, which can override any guideline, and is. as it says it is, the fundamental rule here. If there were a guideline to delete, as there isn't. it would be perfectly legitimate to deal with any special case by IAR. the entire Notability guideline page even more than most guidelines, says the rules are only the usual course, not the invariable course. To be fair, similarly, if there were an establish guideline to keep, we could still delete if there were consensus to make an exception. Kudpung, did you think it was a middle school? That's what the first line says, but reading further show that it started that way, but has developed into a K-12 school. Additionally, proper searching would probably find adequate sources, but I doubt they'd be in English. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, proper searching would probably find adequate sources. Sounds like WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. One would expect to find more coverage of an English-language international school in English-language sources if it were notable, but I'm open to revising my opinion if significant coverage in Korean-language sources is subsequently found. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'velooked at a goodnumber over the years. Sources have always existed only in their own country and in the country of the sponsor. This particular one is originally sponsored by a Japanese companyfor thechildren of its employees. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
again WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 04:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Litvak

Jesse Litvak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I thought this article was maybe borderline for notability but I created it anyway, because there is significant media coverage of the case and it led to a much wider investigation into fraud in bond-trading, which I also planned to write about. I don't really have a strong opinion about it necessarily, but obviously lean towards keeping it. Cypresscross (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a new sub-section connecting the case to broader implications for the government efforts to prosecute fraud in the bond market. I've also expanded the section on the details of the charges. Probably the key to the notability here is the fact that the Litvak case was the first and also most important case in a much broader regulatory effort. Cypresscross (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The coverage seems to indicate that his case/conviction is a big deal in the financial world, and The Wall Street journal called the trial/re-trial "a case that sparked changes to Wall Street sales tactics".[32] I see three hits in GBooks with very minor coverage. The material probably belongs some place in Wikipedia (e.g. Jefferies Group, maybe an article about the court case), but this one is too soon for me to call. Sorry if that isn't very helpful. - Location (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came across the same sources, including the book references. Increasingly I am of the opinion that the subject is notable because he has become the touch point for a much broader effort by regulators, and as the comment above indicates, both the person and the case appear to be leading to major changes on Wall Street. Cypresscross (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails the not news test. The charges and prosecution do not rise above the level of regular news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to userspace Sourcing does not support a stand-alone article on Jesse Litvak, but the crime itself got some significant coverage in article not yet on the page "Bond Traders Beware: Jesse Litvak Reversal Is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card" [33]. And securities fraud is (or at least ought to be) a big deal topic, a topic beside which most of out CRIME articles pale into trivia in terms of impact. Perhaps User:Cypresscross would like to have it moved back to userspace and include some of this material in an (new material: can link to this article when he gets around to writing that) article on fraud in bond-trading, it would give him time to do that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Litvak has some serious coverage - including some minor coverage before his legal woes, but major coverage after. This was a groundbreaking case in terms of degree of accountability a securities trader has vs. his clients - and has had a major impact on the industry. It was accepted practice to "fib" in order to close a deal - this was part of the game, and this case has changed that.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America1000 23:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle match

Bottle match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference provided here gives a passing mention of "the Bottle Cup", a hockey competition, not "the Bottle Match", a rugby competition. A search on Google books turns up only one book discussing this match, and that book was published by the Imperial College Press (which might not be independent from the subject matter). While I do not disagree that the match is old, age alone does not qualify this match as notable. Article lacks substantive discussion in independent reliable verifiable secondary sources, and existence alone does not normally equal to notability. KDS4444 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on WP:NRIVALRY it appears that WP:GNG is the relevant guideline. The source in the article: [35] about hockey is is not really off-topic. The 2nd paragraph in the lead mentioned the mix of sports that began in 2006. There are other sources although some are not independent:[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] It seems reasonable to assume there is much more coverage not online given that this series began in 1902. I'm undecided atm. Gab4gab (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Getrag. WP:NPASR, either at AfD or RfD, due to low participation. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota V transmission

Toyota V transmission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No references, reads like a technical specification manual. WP:NOTDIR. Some aspects certainly seem like OR (WP:NOR) MB 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camtek Intelligent Imaging

Camtek Intelligent Imaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like WP:SOAP to me. Being on the NASDAQ doesn't automatically give you the necessary publicity to pass WP:GNG. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of sources in Hebrew קמטק ([42]) and in English ([43]) cover Camtek. This has been a public company for a very long time and received significant coverage from the Israeli press (including pre-listing in Israel, as its parent company פריורטק was listed and is essentially the same (mostly holds Camtek) - and some coverage from foreign press. The 3D printing line (which failed and was closed down) received coverage as part of the hype, but coverage extands more than a decade.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just being listed in not enough, unless its on the NYSE main board or a comparable exchange. At least the English language references are either just notices or PR reports or stock analysts' rating. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per plentiful, persuasive sources:
  • "Brown Shoe, Camtek: Biggest Price Gainers (BWS, CAMT)" Aug. 26, 2011. "Camtek Ltd. CAMT 2.44% topped the list of Biggest Percentage Price Gainers among common stocks on the Nasdaq Stock Market." WSJ [44].
  • " Camtek Receives First Conditional Order for 3D Inkjet System" Feb 2nd, 2015 [45] [[Jewish Business News]
  • It is certainly large enough to pay its execs handsomely "100 Israeli execs earned over NIS 3m in 2015" 23 March 2016 Globes [46]
  • More coverage in Globes: [47]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J2-L192

J2-L192 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all suffer from the same faults:

J2-L271 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haplogroup J2-L24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No indication that these particular haplogroups are notable; appear to be largely Original Research based on a series of non-Reliable Source community web pages hosted by a DNA testing company, from which unvetted scientific raw data is being extracted. Agricolae (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I can't claim to be very conversant with the the criteria applied to haplogroup notability, the sources provided seem quite weak and unreliable (as in, not peer-reviewed and formally published). Unless there exists some understanding similar to that on species articles - i.e., formal naming is sufficient for base notability - , delete in absence of better sources.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a formal standard for human haplogroups, but I don't think comparing them to a species is correct - the latter is only formallized when it is formally described in print - the act of naming it produces the basis for notability, a published scientific study focussed on that species. These haplotypes do not get individually published, for the most part - at most you might get a passing reference in a paper that is collecting broad sets of data (along the lines of: of the 14 tested we found three of them were J2, and one of these had a novel A-to-G mutation at position 29831 that we designate J2-L192), and that is the most detailed description it will ever receive. Certainly some haplogroups - some of the more basal clades have had whole papers covering their branching patterns and chronology, but I see nothing in these articles to suggest they have received that kind of coverage. Rather, this would be more like finding a crowd-sourced list of all of the different color pattern variations within the eastern newt and creating a separate page for eastern red spotted newts with 15 spots. GNG has to apply, and there is no indication that these particular haplogoups, well out from the base of the tree, have received any significant coverage at all (and that is setting aside the fact that they were compiled by original research from crowd-sourced unpublished on-line datasets). Agricolae (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RiskAdvisor

RiskAdvisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Bre

Lil Bre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. The artist is not signed to a major record label, he has no charting singles or albums, he has not been nominated for a major music award, etc. There is one source, but it's a single article from a tabloid style website; definitely not enough for WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existence does not equal notability. References are promotional, download sites and/or self-generated, and do not indicate any kind of third party coverage or press that is beyond promotional effort (note the source HipHopDX exists partially as a platform for promotion, see their guidelines: http://hiphopdx.com/contactus.) Perhaps someday this subject can show evidence of success that can be considered encyclopedic worthy, but for now, at best, this is a case of WP:TOO SOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:09, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Beigang Story

Museum of Beigang Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. this museum only opened in 2012 and looks relatively small. I examined the 4 gnews hits from Chinese.

  • this one is mainly about a toilet paper factory.
  • this one is about a tourist pass to visit several sites in the county
  • this one is about a bunch of students from the county heading off to south america.

I also wonder if this is actually a shop masquerading as a museum, the google reviews of this place make it sound like a shop. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathomat

AfDs for this article:
Mathomat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathomat, which merged the article to Geometry template. No indication that this is now notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Robert McClenon, SpinningSpark, Aoziwe, Ajf773: A little unusual to run a possible close by the participants, but the situation here is a little unusual. What does everyone think about a keep (for the moment at least) and two-part history merge? A bit of background: the article was first created in December 2004 at this brand name, "Mathomat" title, and merged into and then redirected to the more general type of object, at the title, Geometry template on March 8, 2007. However, what's odd is that you might think, then, that the Geometry template title preexisted the merge but it didn't. Rather, Geometry template was created for the merge (instead of Mathomat simply being moved there, which would have left a smooth page history). Complicating matters, there was improper copyright attribution upon the merge, so their non-overlapping, contiguous page histories belong together. Then, Geometry template was deleted upon a prod in 2013 (which means its page history fits entirely in between the other two; a history merge would not result in any shuffling of parallel editing histories). Meanwhile, Aoziwe above, who has added some sources as noted, has additionally requested undeletion of the prior history of this page and of geometry template at WP:REFUND (which is how I ended up here), so that the best of all can be worked with, but I am reluctant to do that as it leaves behind a bit of a potential attribution mess. With a history merge and a move to the more general object title from the brand name (leaving a redirect in place of course), it seems to me we smooth out attendant copyright issues and give this a good chance, with revisiting the issue always an option.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is explicitly about the Mathomat, so if the page is kept, it should remain at the Mathomat title. I have no objection to the undeletion of geometry template. Merging is a separate question, and should probably be handled separately outside AFD. Whether or not I am in favour of such a merge depends on whether sources are available that are not explicitly about the Mathomat. The last version of the deleted article geometry template has no sources at all and if that remains the case I am opposed to merging. SpinningSpark 20:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fuhghettaboutit - Okay. As you say, it's a weird complicated situation. Whatever. I think I'm a deletionist, but I'm not a hard-core deletionist, and this seems like the least absurd situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All. I am not too fussed about the process from here on as long as it meets our various responsibilities, attribution, verifiability, etc. It seems to me there is notable content here worth saving if it can be done properly, and I am offering to do it. So whatever is done can it maximise my access to relevant material please, hence my request at WP:REFUND. (I did not add the references to Mathomat, the current creator, User:John P Lawton, did. No matter at all though. I just sectionalised / wikified the article a bit.). Thanks User:Fuhghettaboutit. Please tidy up the histories, etc. as required. If there are any references in any of the deleted material can you copy these to User:Aoziwe/sandbox/Mathomat and I will generate my own content if and as appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the last version of geometry template has no references. The only one it ever had was http://eaieducation.com:80/geometry-templates.html which is now a deadlink. However, that was only a sales listing, so not a very useful RS. Here is a Wayback Machine capture of the page. Fuhghettaboutit, in any case I see no reason not to honour the REFUND request right away, and it will aid participants in this discussion who do not have administrator rights. SpinningSpark 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spinningspark. Aoziwe (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. It's a good cause, but Wikipedia isn't a host for essays advocating causes. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need more foster care parents

We need more foster care parents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:20, 27 April 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. With WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 04:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social and economic stratification in Appalachia

Social and economic stratification in Appalachia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a POV fork, focusing on (only) the bad stuff in the area. The most useful article for the issues is at Appalachia#Economy. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cammarano

Michael Cammarano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As yet unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then the mere fact of being a candidate is not enough in and of itself. For added bonus, this is written very much more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and the only reference that's actually present in the article is a press release from his own campaign staff. But even an actual incumbent officeholder who does clear NPOL still doesn't get to source the article that way. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting relevent requirements. If no actual sourcing on page, susceptible to BLPProD. First read inclines me to tag for WP:CSD#G11. Bearcat makes salient points. I did not see the sourcing Bearcat mentions. Dlohcierekim 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to have been a point, between my comment and now, when the reference that is present in the article briefly disappeared due to a formatting error, but that got corrected and it's visible again (there are also two other reference tags being called at various places in the article, but empty ones that don't actually cite an actual reference for anything.) But the one visible reference is still a press release from his own campaign, not independent coverage verifying anything that would count as a notability claim at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi

AfDs for this article:
Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find references in reliable sources which can demonstrate the notability of the subject. Cites references, except one, are from questionable and unreliable sources. Saqib (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Herron

Patrick Herron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable WikiFanD 15:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep Found nothing in Google News, but As per Highbeam search, Weak keep. Found Indy Week's article 1, article 2. Someone check the notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted. The subject is clearly not a notable poet, which is the first thing mentioned in the page. The website proximate.org does is clearly not very well maintained, and I can't find any information about the band mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.148 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Semborski

Eric Semborski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN hockey player, overwhelmingly fails WP:NHOCKEY, the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. The fellow's a practice rink employee (according to the ref) who sat on the bench for a game as an emergency goalie but didn't see action. No sources that don't run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT, and guys like this come a few times each season ... completely ephemerally. Ravenswing 19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which, in point, he has not. It's long been established -- both by NHL rules and by WP precedent in such cases -- that if you don't take the ice during a game, you don't play, and you're not credited with having played. Ravenswing 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails for two reasons. 1) Ravenswing wrote: '"NN hockey player, overwhelmingly fails WP:NHOCKEY, the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. The fellow's a practice rink employee (according to the ref) who sat on the bench for a game as an emergency goalie but didn't see action. No sources that don't run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT, and guys like this come a few times each season ... completely ephemerally." 2) Ravenswing also pointed out: "It's long been established -- both by NHL rules and by WP precedent in such cases -- that if you don't take the ice during a game, you don't play, and you're not credited with having played." So there is no possible way this guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. Dean Esmay (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While it is true that there are a few guys like this every year, his coverage has gone beyond the norm: here, [50], and you can order his jersey which has sold well. It should be noted that someone who appeared for two different teams (philadelphia as well) in one season can hardly be summed up by WP:ONEEVENT. 18abruce (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was included in the Topps trading card set. As this article points out it is an unusual situation and amount of attention given to an emergency backup. And again, maybe I am reading this ONEEVENT thing wrong, but does this mean that he applies to ONEEVENT twice?18abruce (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't really decide on this one whether ONEEVENT applies. During his call up with the Flyers as an emergency, they did try to get him on the ice at the very end of the game. However, he was called back to the bench by the refs because, officially, the emergency goalie can only play if all goaltenders are injured. So he would have had ice time had the rules not disallowed it. He did receive a fair amount of coverage for it, but they are borderline routine as "odd news". Yosemiter (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely a WP:ONEEVENT situation and since he didn't take the ice he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He got coverage for his day an emergency goalie for the Blackhawks, e.g., [51] [52], although that would be WP:ONEEVENT. But then he got coverage for getting an official Topps Hockey card [53], which puts him beyond a typical ONEEVENT hockey situation, although arguably ONEEVENT still applies since the hockey card was related to the day as an emergency goalie for the Blackhawks. But then he got more coverage for his day as an emergency goalie for the Flyers in April [54] [55] which was definitely a separate event from his Blackhawks event. And getting significant coverage for two events is more than one event so WP:ONEEVENT does not apply in this case (Wikipedia:BLP2E, admittedly an essay not a guideline but relevant here). Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NHOKEY is still inferior to GNG, and it acknowledges it: "Q: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline". The one-paragraph news like [56] or [57] don't, imho, constitute significant coverage. PS. Notability ~ importance. Nothing in those sources suggests he is important, those sources are pretty much as close as you can get to footnote coverage in the sport media. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Switch Off

The Big Switch Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ineligible for PROD as it was de-PROD'd in 2008. Ironically, I was apparently the original PRODder, although given that it was nearly 10 years ago I honestly did not remember (and my bad for not checking before PROD'ing again). De-PROD rationale at the time was "removed prod press coverage seems to indicate reasonable notability so this should be discussed at AFD before deletion".

Per my most recent PROD, it is very difficult to find sources owing to the generic name, but even with "Melbourne" added, there were no results showing that this single event passes WP:GNG. No WP:LASTING effect or outcome either - no indication that it was ever held again, or that any policies, customs, or laws were ever created or changed as a result that would indicate a lasting impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Instagram. North America1000 02:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang in Instagram

Boomerang in Instagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps should be merged with Instagram. Doesn't seem to warrant separate article. bojo | talk 14:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 27 April 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 University of New Brunswick. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance College (faculty of the University of New Brunswick)

Renaissance College (faculty of the University of New Brunswick) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (posted at the article's talk page) is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion as such - but if the article is kept, I'm betting there's a cleaner title to which it could be moved. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Parts_of_schools_and_school-related_organizations, faculties within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Renaissance College does not seem to have significant notability. 118.143.145.237 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the conflict of interest is not a valid reason to delete, the quick nomination is - while certainly BITEy - not a reason to keep. In the end, consensus is that the subject is not notable (at this time). SoWhy 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wigner fusion

Wigner fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find many references to assert notability from google search. Created by possible COI user. bojo | talk 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just created this page in Hungarian as well, although I've found a couple of references to our sites, but I can tell you more if you would please specifiy what kind of references would you require. Wigner fusion (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest looking for articles that focus on the facility or organization, not necessarily on something that they are doing or planning. Something that is independent of the subject, but that tells someone why the subject is important or unique or otherwise notable. Also, note that an article with "We are..." as opposed to "Wigner Fusion is..." makes me think that someone from Wigner Fusion wrote the article - and that would violate several policies. Have a look at our policy on writing from a neutral point of view for guidance. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination comes 4 minutes after the creation of the article, and is against WP:BITE. The user might be having a COI issue, and it is being/will be discussed on their talk page. Meanwhile, I will try changing the tone of the article to be more neutral. I would suggest withdrawing the quick nomination, and nominating again in a week or so if the current problems seem unaddressed. RoCo(talk) 17:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for time being. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Hi, would you consider not to delete this page and remove the article-for-deletion notice please? The user name conflict has been solved and as I can see the text have been fixed. Many thanks. Tamas.Szabolics (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Debates of this type usually last 7 days. This gives editors who might not visit the article regularly a chance to see and comment on whether the article should be deleted. That said, if the concerns above have been addressed, then the article will likely be kept and the notices removed. If you want to edit the article to address some of those concerns (say, by making it more neutral or adding additional sources or whatever), that would go a long way to helping make sure the article is Kept. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry but you are wrong I could find reliable sources mentioning Wigner fusion, also dozens of images can be found in Google photos search, try regular search not news Tamas.Szabolics (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough Tamas.Szabolics (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. With no more delete-!votes after rewrites despite three relistings, there seems to be no consensus to delete this after Saqib's rewrite. SoWhy 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Badami

Waseem Badami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines. Journalist with no reliable independent coverage. RoCo(talk) 13:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have somewhat improved the bio. What do you think of it @Mar4d:? --Saqib (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Thanks for your improvement, the sources are decent. I will see if I can add anything of value too. Mar4d (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist given rewrite and new information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reason? --Saqib (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Pletka

Danielle Pletka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, with some overtones of résumé, of a political consultant. This is not based on reliable source coverage about her, but rather cites one news article that glancingly namechecks her existence, one newspaper op-ed where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and one glancing namecheck of her existence in a blog entry. This is not the type of coverage of her that it takes to clear WP:GNG, and nothing claimed here is an automatic pass of any inclusion criterion in the absence of enough coverage of her to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, the way an article "looks" is not a criteria for deletion. Please weigh in on whether or not she is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She is not notable. The references to her are passing, not substantial citations. For example, one sentence that mentions her in a much longer article on Jesse Helms. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a "resume". Article about this Washington foreign policy wonk has been on WP since 2005, with dozens of editors adding and deleting material as controversies/policy disputes with which she is involved come and go. note' how hits on her WP page gyrate, usually just a few a day - then several thousand on a particular day, quickly settling back to small numbers. It's been that way for years, driven by public interest in her whenever an issue she is involved in hits the news. Having a basic article on the talking heads in D.C. is something our users expect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added some sources to the article. Doing a Google News search or a HighBeam search shows that she is featured as a talking head on a lot of news shows, including NPR, FOX, CNN and other stations. However, because she's written a large number of articles (esp for Washington Post), trying to tease through her authored works and her appearances is going to take time. My quick take on her is that she is likely notable. I'd like to have more solid sources in the article before I !vote, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Danielle Pletka has made several recent panel appearances on America's leading public affairs program, Meet the Press, with "notables" like David Brooks, Helene Cooper, Rich Lowry, Nicolle Wallace and Chuck Todd. Somebody at NBC, seasoned news professionals--one assumes--thinks Pletka is "notable". That, in fact, is why I consulted Wikipedia for background information on her. In addition to whatever other supporting evidence corroborates her "notability", this is what Wikipedia is for, right? Surely there isn't a movement afoot to purge individuals from these pages because of their political affiliations (Pletka has "ties" to the American Enterprise Institute). The tone of these comments raises concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Clay (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the problem isn't that there are not ghits, it is that there are too many. We probably haven't figured out the right keywords yet, but there is sufficient solid into in WP:RS to stitch together a proper bio, for example, here is the Jerusalem Post describing her as "a former senior staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and current vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute" before quoting her rather extensively in a recent article on Trump [58]. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup just tag it for tone, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting this, I see that I was right to comment in my iVote above that a plethora of hits makes running searches to check notability tedious. I have expanded and sourced the article somewhat, note that she is described by the Washington Post as "caustic" and "conservative" and that the edit history on the page confirms that people hate her for her political views, and possibly for her "caustic" style. Article can still use improvement, but I do not see any justification for deletion of the article as it now stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article gives pretty clear claims of notability for the subject (her influence on U.S. foreign polity), and at least some of the references are good reliable sources. Actually, it looks like the article was cleaned up significantly during this AfD, with many improved WP:RS added. So, this is a definitive keep. OtterAM (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of District Officers of Lubok Antu

List of District Officers of Lubok Antu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that he meets the notability guideline for tennis players. Whether that guideline is too lenient, is not a question for AfD. SoWhy 13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Russi Assumpção

Eduardo Russi Assumpção (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see this is a non-notable tennis player. He doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines for tennis player. He doesn't regularly compete on the ATP World Tour. His only three appearances in a World Tour event were Wild Cards (so not achieved on merit) for an event in his home country in doubles (which is less notable than singles anyway). Moreover all three of those matches and did not even win a set. Tvx1 12:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - meets WP:NTENNIS as he appeared in 3 ATP World Tour level matches. Unsourced but sources can easily be found. Just because he hasn't won, doesn't mean he doesn't fit the notability guideline. If you feel it is too weak, you can start a discussion for stricter guidelines. But as of now, he meets the criteria. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Adamtt9 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Literally speaking, you might be correct. However, I think some discretion should be used. Three ATP World Tour matches through wildcards for events in his home country resulting in three straight sets losses for the win of just 11 games can hardly be claimed to constitute "competing on the ATP World Tour". Experience has taught me that generally making the main draw of a World Tour event through merit (=successfully passing through qualifying or gathering enough ranking points to gain direct entry) is what is used as the bar to assert notability. Add to that that doubles is inherently less notable than singles (that's how it this, unfortunately. I can enjoy watching a good doubles match myself but I have to accept that it attracts less interest) and I don't think you can genuinely claim that this person is a notable tennis player. And yes, achievement does matter. What they achieve is inherently what makes sportspeople notable.Tvx1 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, all three tournaments weren't home tournaments. One was in Spain, and you can't just twist around the notability guidelines to make them what you want. They say that a player must participate in an ATP level match, regardless of whether he received a wildcard or not. And he seems to be generally notable, as there are many hits if you search his name. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I would devalue wildcards the way that you do. Many wildcards have some requirement (e.g., the US Open usually gives wildcards to the NCAA champions, USTA champions, and top finisher from a series of Challenger tournaments). No idea how this player earned his, but considering its distinct tournaments in different countries, he must have accomplished something to earn those wildcards. I don't mean that to say I know he met a requirement, but if he achieved that little he would have maybe gotten one, but not three and not three in three separate tournaments in two different countries. I could see disputing the quality of a player with just one wildcard in their home country, but three is too many to just dismiss. RonSigPi (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with the nomination, and WP:NTENNIS needs revising. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This is one of those players that makes it by the guidelines, but sucks. There's always a few, just like we have players who make it by GNG, but have never played a pro tournament in their life. Are the guidelines too lenient, possibly, but they are easy to follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - So he meets the guideline, but that only gives a presumption. Here, two things make me say we stick with the presumption. First, this is a player from a non-English speaking country. How many editors evaluating speak Portuguese? I don't, so I don't think I can fairly evaluate sources or my lack of finding sources would be reasonable to indicate they are not out there. Second, he played in three different tournaments in three different years. Yes its doubles and yes he lost all three times, but his top-level career has spanned three years over multiple countries. Considering those factors, I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets WP:NTENNIS as written. As a person who appears to still be active in a tennis career, we should keep the page based on that presumption. That said, I would support revising WP:NTENNIS to require an appearance at the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 level to be considered notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not likely to happen. Like baseball players we also have Olympic players, Davis Cup players, Fed Cup players, etc... Baseball does not automatically recognize minor league players, but tennis does IF they win a minor league title. Bseball automatically recognizes every major league player in the US, Japan and Korea. Baseball automatically recognizes any player who has played in an international competition. It could be argued that each ATP 500 and ATP 250 level tournament is an International competition. The ATP tour and WTA tour "are" the tennis major leagues. The ATP and WTA Challenger tours are still professional but are considered the minor leagues. The ITF is professional but is considered the minor-minor league of tennis. The way it is set up today is no minor-minor league player is notable. Minor league players are notable only if they win a championship. Major league players are always notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's the point of this AFD. This player is not a "major league player". He received three solitary invitations (two of which were in his home country) to compete in the lowest class of tournaments (ATP 250) in the "major league" in doubles (which is the lesser notable of the two types of events) and didn't even win a set in any attempt. He has never come close to actually earning the right to compete in any of the "major league" tournaments on actual merit, let alone to compete in the "major league" full time. He has never been ranked above 1500. He has never achieved anything which we consider to be notable by our guidelines.Tvx1 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He was ranked 352 in doubles though. Not above 1500 in singles because I don't believe he plays singles anymore. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's clearly consensus a strong sense that WP:NTENNIS is unreasonable here. I've stricken my keep vote and am starting a discussion of its revision. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is there consensus that WP:NTENNIS is unreasonable??? Adamtt9 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't. No guidelines fit everything perfectly, which is why they are guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in terms of just this discussion, two out of five is nowhere near consensus. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring WP:NTENNIS for a minute, do you feel this player is notable? Power~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. A quick Google search does give a good amount of results, and who knows how many more Portuguese results there are. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And those google results are nothing but his match results and stats. These fall under WP:Routine. It's not only the amount of mentions that is important.Tvx1 02:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point. Usually to pass GNG a player needs a little more oomph to the resume, like an interview. This particular player has been in three Major league ATP tennis draws but they were wild cards. From that we can take away a couple of things. Perhaps there could be a tweak to the tennis guidelines that "wild cards" will need to source additional GNG to make the cut. But on the flipside, wild cards to home country ATP events are usually given to bring in revenue. Those players are popular enough or good enough in their own country that a tournament wants to include them. So they could likely pass GNG in Brazil. Articles other than just scores can be found, such as here and here or perhaps here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why we have guidelines. An English search for a Portuguese-language player competing in Spanish-speaking Spain won't yield anything. We have to make judgment calls. We have a guideline that the community has established. One editor's opinion should not simply sway the collective decision of the entire community, especially when the subject does not just technically meet the guideline, but exceeds it by appearing in different events in different years (so no WP:1E).RonSigPi (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still confused. I don't see a case based on his singles career, but there may be one based on doubles. Appearing in the championship match of an ATP250 tournament is different from simply entering one. But his Wikipedia page doesn't currently link or refer to any ATP250 or above tournaments he competed in. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:NTENNIS. He is also very much active and reached his career high doubles ranking just last month, after the three ATP Tour appearances. I think it's premature to make a judgement yet, a retired player would make a better test case if these guidelines are to be challenged. Jevansen (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per G7, author blanked page RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JovianDSS

JovianDSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable sources on this product, besides the one already in the article. Searching for JovianDSS and JupiterDSS (its old name) bring up no possible sources. There are no possible redirect targets because the developer's article has also been deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: The Software Solution is real and the last links added show information related to the Company.User:crys123 —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crys123: None of the sources in the article show why the topic is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:49, 27 April 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 many editors have pointed out, the subject is a public transportation organization for Latur, a major Indian city. Several editors argued that the article should be kept or that the content should be preserved because it is more likely than not for the public transportation organization of such a major city to be notable.
However, throughout the AfD, an in-depth investigation into available coverage of the organization was conducted, and there has been no evidence presented that a public "Latur Municipal Transport" exists. According to a few sources, it is possible bus transportation within Latur is provided by a private organization, not public. There is also a general feeling that a "Latur Municipal Transport" may have once existed; however, even routine coverage (historical or otherwise) such as bus times couldn't be found, even by one user (the nominator) who lives near the area.
While I appreciate the argument to preserve content where possible, the article is unsourced, and absent evidence of verifiability, I don't see any other outcome here than delete. The title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latur Municipal Transport

Latur Municipal Transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopaedic topic. No scope for improvement as no sources are available online nor offline. None of the provided links in the references section work either. In other words no source/refs to entire article. The topic of the article can be efficiently described within the article of Latur —usernamekiran[talk] 11:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD is not cleanup. But keeping every article ever created is not "building encyclopaedia" either.
As it was mentioned in the article itself, the number of buses and ferries are considerably low. Not notable. It can be adequately covered in the article of Latur city. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: this is being a ping-pong. Would you please take a bold decision either to keep or delete the article? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @David Tornheim: I am from the city near Latur. I visited Latur like 2-3 years ago, at that time there were not many ferries, just a few. They were on very limited routes too. It is definitely not notable for wikipedia article. But as I am the proposer for deletion, my comment shouldn't be considered. And my findings while I was in Latur city can't be taken as source either. I think the article should be merged in article of Latur city, with appropriate description on Latur Municipal Corporation.
    The article seriously lacks WP:RS. I tried a lot to find even unreliable sources, but couldn't. Before proposing deletion, I tried to improve the article, but there is no way to improve it. I think, the article should be merged. But as it was on wiki for a very long time, and for other reasons, I could not perform a bold merger. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, and I would support a merge, if I could be sure it even exists. I could find nothing in Marathi, Kennada or Urdu by doing Google and Wikipedia searches that confirms there is such a thing as "Latur Municipal Transport" with the letter "LMT" on the buses. (Admittedly, the article on our Wikipedias in these language are very weak compared to those in English). Can you find anything? Even images of these buses? Since I don't know these languages my searches might not have been correct, but I did spend a while and was surprised I could not find anything. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: This photo on flickr is the most confusing one. It was taken on August 22, 2012. The LED panel on bus reads "Latur Municipal Corporation Transport Project". The uploader was surprised to see ads of private companies on these buses (govt offices mostly advertise for other govt schemes or awareness), one comment stated the buses are privately owned, the other comment corroborated this claim.
The article from Sakal news Nov 19, 2013; states municipality proposed to establish city bus service (not a decision).
This facebook post of clipping of same Sakal newspaper, dated May 26, 2015 (newspaper date) states that only two buses were provided to municipal corporation. So we can be sure that there was no city bus service by government (LMT) till at least April 2015. The article is obviously based on false information. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Did you notice the comments at the bottom of the picture on Flickr?
  1. Latur Municipal Corporation runs its mini buses by ACGL. These buses have ads from private bus operators on them.
  2. This services are operated by Pushkaraj Travelles......!!
  3. Thats why it has ads from Pushakaraj Travels on it.
That suggests that Pushkaraj Travelles is the private entity that runs it, information that was just deleted by Ninney on 4 May 2015. I was confused for a while, because I mistakenly thought that Latur Municipal Corporation being established as recently as 25 October 2011 with abbreviation "LMCG" (sounding like a stock Ticker symbol) meant it was a private for-profit corporation that ran buses for profit and possibly for other things, and I thought this was some promotional article. I have to rethink my previous approach based on that mistaken assumption. Now I see that according to our article, it is actually a new form of government of the city. So it is possible that LMT is the government entity that oversees contractors, such as Pushakaraj Travels.
Is it safe to assume you are fluent and/or can read Marathi, Kennada, Urdu and/or Hinidi? Trying to google all of these things in four different languages, none of which I know is quite a challenge--but I do like a challenge!  :) Certainly interesting learning about other cultures by being able to read direct documents via Google translate.
One thing I had trouble figuring out was how to use the government run website(s) to find a public run bus system. I believe one official website is latur.nic.in (Google Translated to English) (which appears to be for for Latur district rather than Latur city), which I found from the Kannada page for Latur, kn:ವಿಶೇಷ:AboutTopic/Q61394 (Google translated to English). I would think that would help answer our question. However, when I went to that site (in Marathi) (and possibly some others), I did not see anything on a public bus system, only that the municipal corp. runs the bus stops. For that site (latur.nic.in), there is a link for "Bus reservation" (in English) that is part of Maharashtra_State_Road_Transport_Corporation which is for regional intercity rather than intracity. Our page says that it runs both intercity and intracity. Are we really sure that there is such a thing as the Latur Municipal Transport? I'm losing confidence this is a separate entity and not simply part of the MSRTC.
This might be the City's website: http://www.mclatur.org (Note: upper right has an option to read page in English), which has a copy of the budget here, but unfortunately Google translate can't translate the PDF to English. I imagine the budget should say home much money is dedicated to intercity transport and might include who the contracts are with. Pinging @Usernamekiran: and @Ninney: for this and my most recent posts preceding.
The "tenders" page lists the various departments for the City, but there is none for transportation or buses, but maybe under another department? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: Yes, I've native fluency in Marathi, and Hindi. I've level 2 fluency in many languages from India, including Kannada, telugu, tamil, gujrati, and marwadi among a few others. But I can't read any of the languages except Marathi, Hindi, and Sanskrit. I'm level 3 in Urdu, but again can't read it.

I checked through all the links you provided, you are right, there are no mentions at all. While searching, I also came across Latur Municipal Corporation, which makes few blatant false claims. But I can't remove/change them without RS. I will do it once we are done with this AfD.

As you said, the MSRTC is totally a different organisation. It is Maharashtra state government's dept. It owns buses for intercity travel only, and in some tourists spots, they have guest houses too. From the sources I have been going through since past 2 weeks, all I could get was peacock words, and no mention of LMT. Some sources made passing references that the bus stop is handled by municipal body, which can be applied for the bus stop of MSRTC, which provides only intercity buses. Or the sources might be talking about bus stops for privately owned buses. Like taxi stands, government body provides place for taxi stands, where individual registered taxi drivers can park their vehicles. In this case, there should not be an article.

Actually, because the recent findings, I'm not even sure if LMT, if there was any, is still operational. While in Latur, I might have seen a private bus which I mistook for govt bus.

In any case, the article should be redirected to LMC or Latur, with appropriate content with RS there. At the least, lack of content might attract anon users to add some content which can we later verify. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Now I know who to ping when there is a question regarding those languages. :) Sounds like we are on the same page. FYI, I made this edit based on our discussion. We might want to copy some of this discussion to the talk page of one or more of the articles, or as least point to it. Regarding MSRTC, you said it is only intercity, but our article says in the sidebar "Local bus service in selected cities," so I think they do some intracity, and that might include Latur City. Of course, that article might be wrong. Did you find it stated else where that MSRTC is exclusively intercity? Also, you did say that the bus in the Fickr picture said "Latur Municipal Transport," so the author of the article might have based on it on seeing those names. Possibly the name is not a legal, corporate or other official entity but just an identifying moniker that MSRTC and/or a private entity slaps on the buses for the benefit of their customers to know that it is local bus rather than intercity. Does that sound right to you? I agree with you from my reading that it appears that many bus stops are maintained by a government entity (I think Latur District), and I too got the feeling that some or most of those stops were used by other entities, likely including private buses such as Pushkaraj Travels. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New discussion should continue, in spite of previous relistings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I will be more than happy to provide my assistance. :-)
I just read this primary source, and didnt find anything about intra-city. I am sure they would have boasted about it lol. As per my knowledge, not official though, MSRTC usually provide vehicles to Municipal corporations or other bodies, and traning for the employees. But the "intra-city activities" fall under the local governing body including transport. So in most of the cases they are owned and operated by local governing body.

Yes, the LED panel in the photo says "लातूर महानगरपालीका परीवहन उपक्रम" (Latur Mahanagar Palika Parivahan Upakram, Latur municipal corporation transport project). The square box on left says "city bus" in devnagiri. The board kept on dashboard/windshield says "गंजगोलाई"/Ganjgolai, a landmark from city, and an article that I boldly merged to Latur a few weeks ago. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this:
"City Bus Services
S.T. operates City Bus Service in 7 different cities of Maharashtra State. City Bus Service is operated in Nashik, Nanded, Ratnagiri, Miraj, Vasai, Nalasopara, Aurngabad & Chandrapur."
So it looks like they do some intracity bus service, as was mentioned on the MSRTC page. This is where they show the bus depots and bus stands they run. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: I think I found what we need! Look at this [61]:
"Intracity transport
'Latur Municipal Transport' is an intra-city bus service which covers almost all parts of the city and also connects to the more distant industrial suburbs. LMT (Latur Municipal Transport) intra-city buses ply throughout the city including the outskirts and connect different parts of the city and adjoining suburbs together."
Of course, there is a chance they got the information from Wikpedia... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought it does appear to have been taken from Wikipedia. I see other site has the exact same language in other wikipedia-like articles: [62][63] [64]. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: yes, they do operate/provide service in cities, but it is owned by local body like municipality or municipal corporation.
yes, it is exactly like a previous version of either Latur or LMT page. But don't know which came first, wiki or that website.
also, the ST website doesn't mention Latur. I don't think LMT exists currently. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the links given by Mr. Tornheim clearly identify wikipedia as the source of the information - there is no question about "which came first." Kuru (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Ivanvector: hi. Thanks for your input. I agree with your point of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and preservation. But I am still not sure how many buses were operated by government. The only available source says two buses were provided, but they were used ones and require maintenance. The source doesnt mention if they were actually used by the corporation later. The other buses which were operational were privately owned (on limited routes, and not many ferries), so the size of city becomes irrelevant here. As it was owned by private company/companies, it isnt exactly a "public transport". I think it should be merged in the article of Latur city, with mention in Latur Municipal Corporation. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamekiran What reliable secondary sources do we have that establish the existence (or prior existence) of Latur Municipal Transport? I do believe with much confidence based on the many observations we have and other forms of evidence that it must have existed at some point. The problem we have had all along is having no decent WP:RS, despite hours of research looking. So, I'm not sure even a redirect or any mention at another article is even appropriate, until WP:RS can be found. It is of particular concern to me that we might give the impression that a defunct set of buses is operating if it is not--misleading potential riders. If we delete all mention of it, and it does (or did) exist, then perhaps someone from Latur would show up, argue for creating the article (or other mention of it), and once again we can ask for the badly needed WP:RS. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim and Ivanvector: I partially agree. As I commented previously: "the article should be redirected to LMC or Latur, with appropriate content with RS there. At the least, lack of content might attract anon users to add some content which can we later verify." I think we should make a passing reference. The fact that original creator made contributions after the AfD notice was delievered to him, and yet did not comment here; makes me even more doubtful. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamekiran: Is there any WP:RS? After all the research we did, I am not aware of any. If you believe there is,. can you provide the link(s)? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: nope. Never found any. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: per the last two comments immediately above, Usernamekiran and I have spent hours looking for WP:RS establishing the existence of the subject and we have found nothing. Can you provide WP:RS for even one site? Note: that everything we found mentioning it was copied from Wikipedia. Without any independent WP:RS, I just don't see how we can keep the article or even justify a redirect or mention in another article, much less establish notability. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim Not a single sources that isn't plagiarising Wikipedia. I tried Google, Bing, JSTOr, all those nice link at the top, I varied my serach criteria, and came up blank. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you all for your considaration, and inputs. Some of you spent few minutes, or an hour on this issue. Whereas Mr. Tornheim has put a lot of hours in that. I invested a lot more time than anybody here. When I first came around the article, as always, my priority was to improve it. I tried that. After realising that there arent sources available now, i tried to look for newspapers. No result. Then I proposed for deletion. When Mr. Tornheim got involved, we looked futher with no results. Because of Mr Tornheim's findings, L3X1 changed "delete" vote to "neutral". I request everybody who prviously particiapted in this AfD to cast their votes again, in the light of recent findings/discussion taken place here. @Smartyllama, Winged Blades of Godric, AusLondonder, and David Tornheim:
  1. Delete with no redirect. I was the original proposer. If there is a breif passing reference to LMT on the article of Latur city, the lack of content might attract people from Latur to contribute to the article, later which we can improve. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete with no consensus to merge. If someone wants to use parts of this article to merge them somewhere else, feel free to request userfication. SoWhy 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PCG (random number generator)

PCG (random number generator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN fails GNG. (It is WP:INTERESTING so we do have userification / draft.) Widefox; talk 10:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Linear congruential generator leaving a redirect. The single reference is a (very interesting) paper that was submitted for publication but never published. I believe the paper could well have been published had it been cut down to a simple description of PCG. It's much too long for a journal article but it is a wonderful introduction to machine generation of random numbers. There are no other published sources that talk about it. However it has been picked up in the programming discussion groups. The author has done a video explaining it. It's been implemented in a number of languages and serves as the basis for a new hashing algorithm. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma, the self published article isn't a proper WP:RS so maybe an external link or further reading, but how can we merge with zero published RS, zero secondary sources? WP:INTERESTING covers it. Widefox; talk 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Murugan Temple

Melbourne Murugan Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG relies solely on primary sources. No independent verifiable references which establishes its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nominator, having written WP:NRODEO, presumably knows what they are about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Fryar

AfDs for this article:
Stephanie Fryar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First AfD was not reviewed by members of Wikiproject Equine. This individual is completely non-notable... NRODEO is a guide, not a policy that trumps GNG. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if she'd won the NFR, she'd be notable, but she just qualified, which a lot of people do. It's like competing on America's Got Talent versus winning the million dollars. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual is non-notable. I am also from wiki project equine and knowledgeable about rodeo. One qualification for the NFR is non-notable in this case. NRODEO does not make notable here. If she was notable, perhaps the article would not be a few sentence stub. There are not enough sources or achievements. GNG is not met and trying to twist the definition does not make it so. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:NRODEO. While it is correct that it does not trump GNG, it is a guideline that creates a presumption. Therefore we presume sources exist unless given a valid reason otherwise. Her qualification was 9 years ago. Online, that is a long time. A Google search for "2008 National Finals Rodeo" and "2008 NFR" yields only about 3,500 collective results results while a search for "2016 National Finals Rodeo" and "2016 NFR" collectively yields about 25,000 collective results. I think the presumption is not just the coverage received by competing at the NFR, but the results that got a cowboy/cowgirl there (e.g., the rodeos they won that season and the coverage in newspapers and the like that those wins produced). Is anyone really going to go to the medium-sized town newspaper archives from a decade ago to determine if there is coverage? No. If this were for a 2015 or 2016 qualifier, I would think a show cause would be fair. But due to the age of this subjects top athletic prime, I think we need to have the presumption carry weight. And as a reminder, the community of editors came up with the guideline to give the presumption - the stance that this is on par to competing on America's Got Talent and only winners are notable goes directly against what the editors established as the guideline. GNG does trump, but when GNG is not able to be reasonable assessed, as is the case here, then we should follow the wishes of the community of editors and keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After my comment above, I decided to research this a bit further. Rodeo season runs Oct-Sept with the exception of the NFR in Dec. Winning the Caldwell Nights Rodeo produced this result that is in the article [65]. I think that is a quality source. So I checked the rodeo association archives to see what else she won the year she qualifier for the NFR:
  • Texas Circuit Finals [66]
  • Mesquite, TX [67]
  • Stephenville, TX [68]
  • Pecos, TX [69]
  • Window Rock, AZ [70]
  • Rock Springs, WY [71]
  • Abilene, KS [72]
  • Bakersfield, CA [73]
  • San Bernardino, CA [74]
So there were a total of ten wins that season (counting Caldwell). If Caldwell produced the result that we can find, I think we can presume at least some of these other rodeos would produce similar results if someone whet through the local newspaper archives. Also, the Texas Circuit Finals and the Window Rock, AZ rodeo had prize funds similar to Caldwell, so if nothing else we can be confident that three sources exist - one for each of those rodeos. We have the presumption and the facts line up that the sources exist. RonSigPi (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: RonSigPi, Guess what? I wrote much of what is now at NRODEO, shepherded through the changes, and I am quite familiar with the topic of rodeo. I actually am generally an inclusionist, but I really didn't see significant coverage here when I did my WP:BEFORE. Here's what we have:
  1. She qualified for the NFR once, nine years ago, and placed 10th. She's done nothing since.
  2. While I agree that this source fits the standard of "significant coverage in a third-party source independent of the subject", that's not quite enough, standing alone. You may want to read WP:HEY because, bottom line, the article in its present state is not going to cut it. If she had been covered -- say, articles like "favored person's horse tripped and she came in 10th, what a tragedy", that might be coverage sufficient to convey notability. Or, if she has articles profiling her in a "Barrel Racing News" magazine, that would help too. Or if she'd qualified 5 years in a row -- or ... something more!
  3. Unfortunately, "We can probably find sources somewhere, someday, and until then, we keep" is, sad to say, not what works at AfD, at least for people in the modern age (for a pre-google age person who was famous in, say, the 1960s, one or two articles plus stats might cut it, but not in the 2000s).
  4. While the NSPORTS "qualifying for the highest national-level event" is a well-known standard across multiple sports, GNG still must be met. WP:N is policy; NRODEO is a guideline--it explains to the uninitiated editor which rodeos are considered the nationally significant ones.
  5. For notability, passing mentions in statistics charts don't cut it. The wnba stats verify information, but they do not, even collectively, get you to "Significant coverage" -- which "is more than a trivial mention". (per GNG: "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material")
  6. Compare to her father's article that you worked on, note I did NOT AfD it, because though it is a poor-quality stub, his accomplishments qualify, and there is enough evidence that there is more coverage to be found.
  7. WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the "if". So the burden is on you to find the actual source material -- the number of qualifying wins are irrelevant, the issue is if these wins got enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article per GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." -- discussion may prove otherwise.
  8. There are few hits for Fryar -- the only thing I found at WP:BEFORE that is more that a stats sheet is this commercial endorsement that is, at best, pretty weak. When you search "Wrangler NFR" and "Stephanie Fryar" and Barrel racing (which I needed to do to filter out all the other people named Stephanie Fryar), I got 188 hits, most of which were lists of stats. Now if you want to check my search results and see if you have significant coverage , go for it. My mind can be changed if you find more sources like the Caldwell news piece, but so far, I'm not convinced. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 28 April 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.

Mai Jindo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Jindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While tragic, this particular individual doesn't meet WP:GNG, a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has multiple sources from major news outlets. For example: These news outlets: Pakistan Today, The Nation and The Express Tribune. Amnesty International reported on this matter. Excellent story element in terms of article. Justice was fought for hard and very dramatically. Article indicates: "Hakimzadi and Zaibunissa, had to set themselves on fire in order to get authorities to take up their brothers cases", Knox490 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of which deal with a single issue, hence WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and still does not address the WP:BIO1E issue. Onel5969 TT me 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 27 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (Brand New song)

Jesus (Brand New song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable outside of the album. Notability is not inherited. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are articles which have been at Wikipedia for a long time which are less notable. This is notable: "In the US, the single reached number 30 on the Billboard Hot Modern Rock Tracks chart." And so are these factoids: Song performed on Letterman and Conan O'Brien shows. Also, performed on television show Friday Night Lights.Article could use better footnoting. Knox490 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song was #30 on Billboard in 2007 (I added a source) which meets WP:NALBUM #2 Tobyc75 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saeko Zōgō

Saeko Zōgō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ENT and it is WP:TOOSOON, her role in Chaika, Isuca, Maken-ki are all supporting or minor characters. Maybe one major role in Date A Live II, but that's about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has a decent work history and in the external link section I saw that she is listed in the Anime News Network which is a major news website for anime. I just found a IMDB page for her which I will add to the article in the external link section. Knox490 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Her roles apparently are mainly supporting (I'm not sure, the only show of hers that I've actually watched so far is Date A Live), but given that those roles include roles in anime where she is among the show's theme song singers, perhaps those roles aren't as minor as you think. She also performed the opening theme for Triage X; although the single charted poorly (peaked at #92 on the weeklies), it did receive some coverage, such as this. Admittedly, coverage for her isn't spectacular (some sources include this, as well as this interview with her and a fellow voice actress), but there does appear to be just enough coverage, and enough roles, to establish notability. If consensus determines that she is not notable, I would suggest a redirect to Date A Live. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something besides Date A Live that the person is notable for? I see only one single ranked at #111 in Oricon [75] and no albums [76]. This wouldn't be enough to keep. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Sky Wizards Academy? She's listed eighth out of eight among the main characters? Is that enough? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Passing WP:ENTERTAINER is somewhat questionable due to a lack of main roles (I'd say maybe she passes it, but barely). But it seems she does clearly pass WP:GNG for the coverage she's received in Japanese sources. Then Natalie and Animate Times hits seem promising. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 28 April 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. postdlf (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative action at the University of Michigan

Affirmative action at the University of Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan article, just a few random cherry picked incidents. No other university has its own "affirmative action" subpage, which has me convinced that this is some kind of point-making exercise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Ten Pound Hammer. I think there should be consistency across university article subpages. Maybe there is some reference source which rates how well colleges/universities uphold their affirmative action obligations and this could be cited in the university articles themselves if they substantially deviate from the norm. Knox490 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find part of this argument to be at all compelling: no other university has its own affirmative action article so this shouldn't. It's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. There may well be a case to be made against this article, but I'm not going to support deletion based on "consistency across university article subpages." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just wanted to drop a note that this is part of a school assignment, so if this is deleted and the teacher needs it for grading, can this be returned to the userspace? Also, is it possible that this could be merged into its own subsection in the main article for the school? It's mentioned there, but there's enough here to where this could probably justify its own subsection at least. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. Sorry to see your hard work treated this way. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I have expressed concerns about the nominator's behaviour and grasp of policy at Afds past -- but I won't revisit them here. We shall see what we shall see: the matter is far from settled. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could find plenty of sources on any random topic. Just because you find several instances of something happening, does not mean that the "happening" is notable. This is just randomly cherry picked. It's an example farm. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how that is relevant to the application of our notability requirement here. If the subject has multiple independent secondary sources, then it generally meets our notability standard. Are you suggesting we change that standard? If so, probably better to raise that at WP:GNG rather than here. If you believe it does not meet the notability standards, please state exactly how it fails, rather than make up your own standard. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable per WP:GNG - UMichigan's affirmative action program is covered extensively in secondary sources because of the legal history. These cases are major landmark United States Supreme Court cases. They are referred to as The Michigan Affirmative Action Cases in peer reviewed journals. It is hard to overstate the importance of Grutter and Gratz - I ran a search for Grutter in HeinOnline and got 6,059 hits. I think it may seem random for those who aren't familiar with American constitutional law but Grutter is not cherry picking, establishing diversity as a compelling interest in affirmative action cases was huge Seraphim System (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anything maybe a mention in the University of Michigan article as to affirmative action at UM- but doesn't warrant having it's own subpage. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had essentially the same thought as Seraphim--even if most schools' affirmative action programs don't warrant articles, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have pages for the ones that have attracted such significant legal action and secondary source commentary. One could easily make a very worthwhile encyclopedia page for the University of Texas's affirmative action program, along the same lines. Passes GNG and the spirit behind it at WP:WHYN: we have plenty of sources to write a substantial, balanced encyclopedia entry. (It shouldn't need saying but keep in mind too that notability inheres in the topic, not the entry: if we even began to list all the journal articles relevant to this entry, we'd truly drown in citations. Whether or not they've yet been added to the entry doesn't bear on AfD.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas London (author)

Thomas London (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an author who appears to have produced only self-published works. Admittedly one of those works has received notable attention, and he produced a film that premiered at a notable indie film event, but I am not seeing WP:NAUTHOR criteria being met. Still WP:TOOSOON. Because notability is not inherited, a notable book does not automatically confer notability on its author. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://barandbench.com/gaurav-bhatia-resigns-as-uttar-pradesh-additional-advocate-general/
  2. ^ http://www.arpafilmfestival.com/short-film-rain-thomas-london-2016-arpa-iff/
  3. ^ http://www.valleyfilmfest.com/valleyfilmfest/app/films/2091/;jsessionid=9129E53F44E5679C6229553826E0C938
  4. ^ http://sub.festival-cannes.fr/SfcCatalogue/MovieDetail/35b4d793-9021-4499-a813-9f4d5761a936
You don't seem to understand the deletion rationale above. The fact that his short film has been merely screened anywhere does not make him notable. Exactly what part of WP:NAUTHOR does this person meet? Exactly where is the significant coverage of this person (not one or two of his works) in reliable independent sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWP:NOTSOAPBOX and also delete his novel Splintered: A Political Fairy Tale (novel). A book needs a minimum of 3 reviews to merit a page based on review alone, and I'm not at all sure Pub Weekly and Kirkus count. this book, however, although published in 2015 - which should have made it easy to search for, appears to have sunk with barely a ripple. His indy film got into a couple of film festivals, but there appears to have been no coverage of either the film or the book. Here's a google search on the book title: [77], on the film title: Rain + "Thomas London" [78], and a gNews search on "Thomas London" [79]. We should delete him and his book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, gosh, just noticed that I had run a quick search and quick opinon on this last week. Had forgottenthat completely when I spotted it today while looking at the list of Author-related deletions. I stand behind both of my opinions, but I guess I'll s the shorter one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 03:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SloTop50

SloTop50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A self-published chart, which does not contain any third party notability, nor does it contain any concrete methodology. I tried to search somewhere reliable where SloTop50 is mentioned, turns out that even the IFPI does not recognize it. —IB [ Poke ] 05:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before declaring my preference I'd like to point out there are five lists of SloTop50 singles from years 2013-2017 plus a template (below). Should these be including in this debate as well? Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology is clear for me, as it is an airplay chart, it just counts all the songs played on the monitored radio stations. Having the SAZAS backing the chart is more than many charts here on en-WP are able to. And I found some reception of the chart, but only domestic newspapers. It doesn't look like the chart is well-known outside of the country... [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]
My proposal: keep the chart, but move it to Slo Top 50 as this one is more recognized, as is seems. --Ali1610 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 27 April 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. The article needs a merciless cleanup, and especially requires someone to insert its single best argument for notability -- the XXL reference pointed out by DA1. But first and foremost the article needs to be moved from its patently ridiculous name to something more appropriate per WP:MOS. I may do that myself after finishing the close. A Traintalk 11:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Worlds Freshest (Dj.Fresh)

The Worlds Freshest (Dj.Fresh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The article uses self-published sources and blogs to support notability. Reliable secondary sources make trivial mention to the musician, and a search online for secondary sources brought back more trivial mention. I have been unable to confirm the claim that Miracle & Nightmare on 10th Street ever charted. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a very quick online search on the artist I was able to find 3 sources [85], [86], [87] that meet WP:MUSICBIO #1. Though the current article is not well sourced—probably due to inexperience from the author—I don't feel there was enough research before requesting its deletion: it could still be worked upon Wapunguissa (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you listed are interviews, which are considered primary sources. WP:GNG states that sources should be secondary. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some work, a lot of cleanup, but the subject is 'notable' enough. He was recently included on XXL magazine's 30 of the Best Hip-Hop Producers of 2016 [88], should be noted. – DA1 (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NMUSIC #1 criteria I cited earlier says "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." It refers "independent" in the sense of "The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works." On the links I gave The Fader, and Noisey are independed publications, and they found the subject notable enough to write about him and interview him. They are not self-released they are top music publications. The fact that those are interviews and thus "primary source" is another issue. Wikipedia:Interviews says interviews may countain both primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources is when the interviewer talks about the artist, and both "interviews" do have a small introduction where they do. The third article—which was not contested—is by XXL (magazine) which is on of the main hip-hop publications in the US---one of the main publications in the subject's field finds him notable enough to write about him: I still defend keep Wapunguissa (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:52, 27 April 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 anyone wishes to merge any of this content to the Boka article, please advise and I will retrieve it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Boehm

Kevin Boehm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional article about a chef, by an obvious WP:COI WP:SPA, Shelbeyboka (talk · contribs). The subject is conceivably notable, and some content might end up at Boka (restaurant), but any article should be (re-)written by a non-COI editor in a non-promotional tone.  Sandstein  15:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 27 April 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetoon (India)

Spacetoon (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely a WP:HOAX. No reliable sources to indicate that Spacetoon has a branch / subsidiary in India. The website listed on this page does not exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This also needs to be deleted. List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon (Pakistan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinnosukeandme (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article is about the Indian version, not the supposed Pakistani version. Nothing about an Pakistani version can be found on the internet except in this article.--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note there are two articles nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon (Pakistan) doesn't have any references at all. Besides that, there's no references that Spacetoon Pakistan even exists. If you read your references you will see that nowhere it's being referred to as TV channel but just as a licensing company.--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article was created by a hoaxer who was blocked right off (the behavior of edit summaries featuring only the page title in question has quickly become a hoaxer trademark). It's too poorly written, the network has no .in website (there's this site, but it looks like it dates back to 2011 and might only be a 'proof of concept' site) and all three sources listed by NA1000 aren't neutral, but are likely paid stories. I don't believe this channel exists and we're just being spun in circles by an IP hoaxer. At minimum this article needs a complete WP:TNT from a trusted editor if the network is indeed real, but this is likely yet another 'invented network' from India. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as there is obviously WP:RS for Spacetoon India, and per arguments by Northamerica1000. Please don't file frivolous WP:AfD proposals that clearly have WP:RS. Please do you due diligence. A simple Google search of Spacetoon India gives the Business Standard article and Bloomberg mentions it here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Beware of Darkness (band). Kurykh (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of Darkness discography

Beware of Darkness discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discography page is under 5kB, and artist page is just over 11 kB, which are not prohibitive lengths per WP:SIZE nor MOS:DISCOGRAPHY. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Michig:, I tried to {{PROD}} the article, however, that got reverted, stating "The information on this page is needed because the discography section on the band's article is for studio albums only". Without a record of decision, my merge could easily be reverted before the article and its discography grow sufficiently. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wilson (ice hockey)

Anthony Wilson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bavin

Sam Bavin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stwo

AfDs for this article:
Stwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Continues to fail WP:MUSICBIO. DBrown SPS (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On a quick search I could immediatly find articles by Fader and Pitchfork and other reliable sources on the producer. He is capable of meeting #1 on WP:MUSICBIO but article needs improvment to meet standards. Wapunguissa (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To comment on the "Keep" argument above, Fader and Pitchfork are, in fact, first person sources (interview with subject talking about himself) so do not constitute third party coverage. Other searches turn up the usual SPAM type coverage of announcements and credits in various user submitted sites, small-time sites, and sources such as Fader and Pitchfork, which partially exist as platforms for artists and companies to solicit promotional editorial content. Is there any difference between this article and the one on the same subject that was deleted 10 months ago? ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A fair amount of coverage found, e.g. [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], although he doesn't seem to have done very much so far. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater#Music and Festivals. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walkabout Clearwater Chorus

Walkabout Clearwater Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any notability for this choir. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme performance art

Extreme performance art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no citations, and is a subjective "sub-category" of Performance art listing artists that have not made major contributions to the genre. Netherzone (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 27 April 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. If there really are only two independent sources, that's not sufficient to establish notability, so no consensus to keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle.com

Tickle.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it is right now, this page will probably fail WP:GNG. Besides, there's hardly any reliable coverage about the website I can find on the web. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not see the independent secondary WP:RS? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenis D. Valavanidis

Diogenis D. Valavanidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage and the three organizations that he is a part of have no articles. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: GNews actually showed nothing meaningful to add failing GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep. He has received decent coverage in Serbian mainstream press for his activities on Serbian and Greek cultural heritage:
    • "Diogenis Valavanidis receives Order of the Serbian Orthodox Church". Serbian Orthodox Church. 26 September 2013.
    • "Neobični Beograđani: Grk u potrazi za svetinjama". Večernje Novosti. 23 November 2013.
    • "Nasilje je postalo jače od istorije" [Violence became stronger than history]. Svedok. 7 February 2017.
    • "Otvoren novi muzej Akropolja" [New Acropolis Museum Opens]. Politika. 20 June 2009. (only brief statement of his)
That being said, there is not much more than that in the mainstream press, other than occasional mention or statement by his. He seems to be currently a secretary of the Serbian embassy in Hungary [96], so he receives some coverage for activities there [97]. No such user (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 27 April 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. I'm a bit taken aback that the only keep votes seem to be from SPAs, but the lack of participation makes it hard to judge, so I can't really see a consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CANpie

CANpie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable software; I could only find a single significant hit (in German), which appears to be some kind of blog and thus isn't exactly a reliable source. I couldn't find anything else other than the usual tech question sites and sites that host the code (like GitHub and SourceForge). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CANpie is a predecessor to SocketCAN, as the maintainer and lead-developer of SocketCAN said himself in his dissertation (German[98]). While SocketCAN is not real-time capable as such, because it depends on the non-real-time Linux kernel scheduler, CANpie is an real-time capable alternative and still actively maintained. CANpie is also used in non-Linux environments like on QNX, Windows, macOS, and bare metal. CANpie presumably will become the defacto standard API for CAN based applications by CAN in Automation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterTS (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Grace period for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of References Here is a list of references found in the internet:
  • Gateway product [99]
  • A controller board from the beginning of the Maker scene [100]
  • One of the first references in a newsgroup back in 2001 [101]
  • Linux Home Automation, CANpie added in 2007 [102]
  • Implementation on NXP microcontroller [103]
  • Software Architecture for Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robots, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center [104]
  • Patent for SocketCAN (in German [105])
  • Diploma theses (Gajdos, English [106]) (Blumenthal, German [107])
  • Keep Additional references have been added to the article which disprove the reason for AFD (Does not appear to be notable software), links to commercial products have not been added. Open for more comments in order to improve the page. Dolores88 (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed on the quality of sources to satisfy WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only keep voices look like SPA users. References here and in the article are too weak to show notability. Sole source close to RS is CVUT diploma thesis (master/Ing. degree I think), but this has only single mention of CANpie. I will look for better sources, but for now, I´m leaning to delete. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I browsed all other linked research papers (ICC, other thesis) and again only passing mention (or even no mention at all!). Still no luck in usual online/published technology sources. Pavlor (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CANpie is a notable piece of software in the area of embedded control devices. And don't compare the visibility of it in the media with standard software products for desktop computers. It is the only open source software API I'm aware of for different CAN Bus based protocols. I is different to SocketCAN and can4linux because the API can be used not only on Linux but especially in deeply embedded devices with or without operating systems. In this sense it is a more generic approach than the others mentioned. Plupp (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To prove notability, you need coverage of the article subject in reliable source (eg. reviews in published/online magazines etc.). No exceptions... Pavlor (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, a list of reliable sources ( published/online magazines)
Both vogel.de portals look like RS (first one is short news only, the second is broader). Can´t judge CAN newsletter - I have bad feeling they publish what companies send them. I don´t have access to last two offline sources. Pavlor (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor: Shall I provide a copy of the print media? Any recommended practice? Dolores88 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting copyrighted material is not ideal. Do you know web pages of these magazines, so I can verify their publishing policy? I trust you these articles do exist, I only don´t know, if these magazines are RS by Wikipedia rules. Pavlor (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If these two magazines are http://www.embedded-design.net/ and http://www.technik-einkauf.de/, then most important factor is origin of magazine articles, as both accept texts as paid advertising - only articles written by magazine staff are (probably) RS, which may be hard to find in such magazine. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If have found these links from the impress (http://www.tedo-verlag.de/magazin-embeddeddesign/ and http://www.mi-verlag.de/produkte/fachzeitschriften/technik-einkauf.html), which is pretty much the same what you have. Dolores88 (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojša Todorović

Nebojša Todorović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently fails WP:NACADEMIC. PROD removed w/o comment. —swpbT 13:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The PROD wasn't exactly removed without comment – the editor who removed it suggested we expand the article by translating from Serbian Wikipedia. The Serbian article appears to be completely unreferenced, though, so I don't think that would help in establishing notability. It would be good to get the opinion of someone who can read Serbian. --Deskford (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete. The article is improved and will be additionally improved in the following days.Andrija (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian, and was able to check the sources. I don't see anything particularly outstanding in the subject's biography that would suggest passing of WP:NACADEMIC. Yeah, Todorović is/was a professor of musicology on a couple of musical faculties and high schools in south Serbia, presided or was an advisor on a number of minor festivals or local cultural institutions, and wrote a musical critic here and there. pretty much par for a course of a typical academic career. Sourcing in the article is barrel-scraping, with multiple sources repeated, and multiple passing mentions listed. I'm particularly unimpressed with the subject's written bibliography on his official curriculum page [108], which consists of one monograph from 1981 and one work on Mozart's sonatas from 2007. That's pretty little output for a one of the leading musicologists and music theorists in Serbia. No such user (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me try to clarify some things:

“one of the leading musicologists and music theorist in Serbia” was a quotation from an independent source.

Todorović has taught at two universities in Serbia, of five that currently offer education in the field of music, and presented lectures at conferences organized by additional two universities.

Niš is the second largest city in Serbia [109], with the university, electronic industry, airport, symphony orchestra, youth philharmonic orchestra, etc., and several festivals, including the international choir festival of which Todorović was an artistic director and selector.That choir festival has a long tradition and is well known in Serbia (and not only in Serbia); as it was mentioned in one of the sources, last year it was reviewed by three well-known musicologists from Belgrade, including those from the national radio station Radio Belgrade. It is not a minor festival. Festivals in Leskovac and Vranje maybe don’t have such a long tradition, but are well organized and attract high quality participants, what can be easily verified any musician who reads their programs. We shouldn’t judge the quality of some institution or manifestation by its location, but by the quality of people included in it. There’s no reason to underestimate those in south Serbia. (And just to emphasize that I don’t live in those towns, nor am I affiliated with those festivals in any way.) Serbia is too small country to have some significant differences between its regions.

It is normal that somebody who lives and works in south Serbia (south-eastern actually) focuses his activities in that area, but Todorović had activities in other parts of Serbia as well. Invitations to give public lectures on the national radio station in Belgrade, to review a book published in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, present a scientific paper in the Serbian Republic, review a festival in Montenegro and publish reviews in their major newspaper certainly suggest his notability in the region.

As for his CV at the University of Niš’s website (published in 2013 and obviously not updated): in contrast to some Western countries, in Serbia Commission for Accreditation and Quality Assurance doesn’t require or allow professors to write their complete CV as a part of documentation reviewed in the process of accreditation. In order to prove his/her competency to teach certain subject(s), one has to list “at least five, not more than ten” most important publications/concerts/exhibitions…, depending on the scientific/artistic area, so, only examples, as Todorović probably did. And those works mentioned in his CV, presented at the scientific conferences organized by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) in Belgrade – the highest scientific and artistic institution in the country, or by Matica srpska in Novi Sad, almost equally important institution in north Serbia, are without doubt significant; Mokranjčevi dani (The Days of Mokranjac) in Negotin is a manifestation with a long tradition, attended by numerous musicologists and performers.

Complete CV with bibliography and proofs is submitted only when one applies for a position at the university. The complete documentation is then reviewed by at least three professors from the same scientific/artistic area, from different universities, in the same or higher rank than those for which a candidate applies. I don’t know who reviewed Todorovic’s work, but they all had to be full professors of Musicology or Music theory, probably from the Faculty of Musical Arts in Belgrade and to give positive review and recommendation for his appointment into the rank of full professor. I suppose that they wouldn’t give such recommendation if they weren’t sure that he was qualified for that position and academic rank.Andrija (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is saying that Todorović is not qualified for his position. However, just being a full professor of a university is not a sufficient achievement to earn him a Wikipedia article – WP:NACADEMIC bar is much higher than that, requiring research [of] significant impact; a highly prestigious academic award, or similar, and in the case of Todorović I just don't see it. Writing several papers for journal and conferences, and a textbook or a monograph is pretty par for the course for a full professor, and I don't see any "significant impact" there, even considering the full list at Serbian Wikipedia. Festivals such as Mokranjac Days in Negotin or Choir Festival in Niš (where he participated only as an art director, not as a founder or something), regardless of tradition, in my book qualify as "minor", as they are of regional importance and hardly world-rank events. And such activities (jurist or art director of a festival, writer of an occasional critic) are certainly expected for someone on a high academic position. No such user (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:ACADEMIC is a supplement to WP:GNG, not something that supercedes it. GNG is met, and notability established. There's a fair bit of puffery in style that requires copyediting, but these folks in the Liberal Arts fields are not going to some up with the same types of publications as someone in the hard sciences nor will they get the popular coverage of rockstars. Here, we have numerous sources from third-party publications and I think this is more than adequate, particularly when you add in the national awards. WP:GNG is met. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Montanabw, I don't see GNG satisfied. When one digs deeper into the apparently impressive list of 36 references, and removes about a half of duplicated entries, it turns out to be more or less a digest of Google results about the subject – every school, festival or forum where he participated and where he got a passing mention is duly used as a reference. The sources that go any deeper into his biography aren't really independent – those are Vranje Piano Summer festival brochure, where he held a lecture about Skryabin, its rehash on the same festival, where he held a lecture on Gilels, and his faculty CV. No independent press, magazines, interviews. And I'm also concerned about Zero hits at Google books (the few hits are about another person) – even taking into account systemic bias, books in Serbo-Croatian tend to be at least indexed by Google, and there's nothing here. No such user (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hesitant to delete these non-English bios of folks in Eastern Europe because newspaper coverage and such may not be age-of-Google. I see a combination of academic accomplishment and musicianship. The "how many peer reviewed papers did he publish?" standard of NACADEMIC works for the hard sciences, but is not an adequate way to rank people in the arts. Here, we look to a multitude of different accomplishments, and even if some sources are duplicative, we err on the side of a presumption of notability until established otherwise, and here I think it's on the keep side of the line. But, of course, you have the right to disagree with my position on this matter, I've said my piece and I'm not interested in a lot of further debate, it will go as it goes, so am also taking this off my watchlist. Montanabw(talk) 20:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 00:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am persuaded by the arguments of "No such user". I am not persuaded by the argument that "we err on the side of a presumption of notability until established otherwise". Even if that were true, the presumption in this case has been removed by the evidence of this academic's low rate of publication and recognition within the field of musicology. Given the paucity of this scholar's impact, the article could only be justified were there a rule on Wikipedia that every academic gets an article. That cannot possibly be the case. Syek88 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to suggest he passes notability for academics, and the coverage of his other activities is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant press coverage. And if he is notable enough for the Serbian Wikipedia then surely he is notable enough for the English version. We have little enough coverage of Serbia.Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. meets neither WP PROF or the possible alternative WP:MUSIC. Most of the writings discussed at great length here are just articles and reviews, with only one book. I consider only the frWP and the deWP to have sufficient notability requirements that articles of national-relatedsubjects in them are almost certainly notable here also. (possibly nl also, but I haven't happened to notice many where it's applicable). Other languages much less so, even other major European languages. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am not convinced by the argument that this person has significant press coverage; while the number of sources is impressive, most if not all are either not independent, or are mere mentions of the article subject. This doesn't mean that their scholarship doesn't have value, simply that we don't have enough significant and neutral information to write a proper biography of them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_27&oldid=777528626"